Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BATH CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Mr. N. S. Sandhu

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now allow Mr. N. S. Sandhu to enter the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): No, Sir. I can see no grounds for dissenting from the entry certificate officer's decision that Mr. Sandhu is not qualified for admission under the Immigration Rules. But it is open to Mr. Sandhu to make a fresh application, and if that also were refused he would have a right of appeal.

Mr. Hordern: Is it not strange that a person who passed all the necessary formalities and received permission to enter the United Kingdom, but had the misfortune to break his leg, should then, six months later, be refused permission to enter the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lane: I understand that that was not a material factor in the date of his application, and that he applied for the certificate some months after the withdrawal in January, 1969, of the special concession to Commonwealth husbands and fiancés. If Mr. Sandhu wished to make a fresh application, he would have a right of appeal under the new legislation.

Dogs (Sale)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ban the sale of dogs, dead or alive, for the purposes of pelting.

Mr. David Lane: No, Sir.

Mr. Price: Is the hon. Member aware that since the first batch of dog skins was found in my constituency, it has become clear that this vile practice is both growing and profitable? Does he not appreciate that the pelting of dogs in whatever circumstances, whether bred for the purpose of sales off the streets or merely sold after they have been destroyed, causes dismay to the majority of people, and will he say what he intends to do about the situation?

Mr. Lane: I appreciate the strong feelings on this matter, but we have to strike a balance between sentiment and common sense. The important point is to make sure that any dogs which have to be put down are put down humanely. There are difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but if he has further evidence that the practice is growing unduly I hope that he will let me have that evidence.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the firm about which complaints have been made is situated in my constituency and has been doing a wonderful job of keeping people employed? Is this any different from other types of work of this nature, since probably every hon. Member in this House is wearing shoes which are made of leather?

Mr. Price: I am not.

Mr. Lewis: Provided that it is done properly and the animal is dead, what difference does it make? I speak as an animal lover, and I have my own dog. If the process is pursued as the firm in my constituency pursues it, in a proper manner and in conjunction with the various charitable organisations, surely there is no harm in it.

Mr. Lane: I am sure there is a lot in what the hon. Member says.

Irish Republican Army

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department


whether he will make a further statement about his consideration of the activities of the Irish Republican Army in Great Britain.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of ways of combating the activities of both wings of the Irish Republican Army within Great Britain.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement about the activities of the Irish Republican Army in Great Britain.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Appropriate steps will continue to be taken, but I have at present no proposals for legislation in this connection.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Now that we have direct rule over Northern Ireland, may we not find ourselves in more direct confrontation with the IRA in this island, and will my right hon. Friend assure me that, if more powers are required, he will come at once to this House and obtain them? Is he satisfied that the Public Order Act is being applied in full when persons appearing to be in IRA uniform have been marching in the streets of London?

Mr. Maudling: If I thought that further powers were desirable I would come to the House and ask for them. The police are very efficient indeed and at the moment have all the powers they need. The enforcement of law is for chief officers of police, and if any hon. Member knows of a particular example which should be drawn to their attention, it should be sent to me and I will pass on the information.

Mr. Goodhart: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that fund-raising activities on behalf of the IRA have ceased in this country? Is he aware that it will be difficult to control more effectively the activities of the IRA in Great Britain until there is some control over immigration into this country from the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Maudling: I have had no recent complaints about specific examples of fund collecting on behalf of the IRA.

Interest in this House has been effective in bringing that to an end. The second point relates to a much wider question.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous anger which is felt by those engaged in the security fight in Northern Ireland and by the people living there when they see Republican and IRA leaders parading around Britain? Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible in conjunction with the security authorities to deal effectively with both their financial and their propaganda efforts?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly. But in so far as they are breaking the law, it must be for the police authorities to take action against them. I am sure that what has been said today will be noted by the police authorities.

British Board of Film Censors

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions are currently being held with the British Board of Film Censors.

Mr. Maudling: I have had informal discussions of a general character with the President and Secretary of the Board.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Board of Film Censors no longer seems to enjoy the same confidence in its judgment among local authorities as once was the case? Does my right hon. Friend feel that some form of statutory code is required, or, if not that, can he initiate talks to bring local authorities, the film industry and the Board into harmony once more?

Mr. Maudling: I held a meeting yesterday on the specific point with representatives of the AMC, the County Councils Association and the Greater London Council. They did not share my hon. Friend's view. They did not express any lack of confidence in the Board. There are ways in which co-operation can be improved and I shall pursue them. In general, they express satisfaction with the present system.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a scrupulous guardian of the rights of free expression, except where obvious harm may result to the public


by virtue of the wanton display of works of violence, and so forth?

Mr. Maudling: I am a scrupulous guardian of the rights of free expression. I am also a guardian of society against violence. If there is evidence that any activity is contributing to the disturbing growth in the land of violence, it is my responsibility to do something about it.

Fire Prevention (Educational Establishments)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will circularise local fire chief officers to offer training in fire prevention in colleges of education or schools.

Mr. David Lane: Fire authorities already seek opportunities to give such training. Guidance to assist them in this task has been prepared by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council and will shortly be circulated.

Mr. Tilney: Does not my hon. Friend agree that fires cause immense damage to property and loss of life and that the means of prevention are best inculcated in the young?

Mr. Lane: I agree, and I know my hon. Friend's interest in this problem. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House and of local authorities to a new guide to fire prevention publicity and a new booklet on teaching fire prevention in secondary schools which we are issuing shortly.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that with the raising of the school leaving age this is a subject which might be taught in schools? Can my hon. Friend arrange for the necessary co-ordination between his Department and the Department of Education and Science so that courses may be held?

Mr. Lane: That is a helpful suggestion and I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to it. If we can help in that, we will.

Prosecutions (Bills of Indictment)

7. Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the law regulating the granting of bills of indictment to transfer

criminal prosecutions from a lower court to a higher court.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The Government have no plans for legislation on this subject.

Mr. Ellis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the steadily accumulating evidence showing that this procedure is being used to thwart the wishes of defendants and even of courts where no practical difficulties exist to having cases conducted entirely in Welsh, and that an increased possibility of a miscarriage of justice and increased public disquiet inevitably follow? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look at the affidavit produced in Carmarthen Crown Court last week in order to see the farcical and tragic situation that has been contrived?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that the system is being ill used. The voluntary bill of indictment system is a procedure whereby the prosecution may apply to a high court judge for a voluntary bill as an alternative to ordinary committal proceedings. At the moment, we have no intention of altering that procedure.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: On how many occasions has a magistrates' court adjourned a hearing for several weeks so that the police could find a Welsh-speaking solicitor, only to discover that over its head the case has been transferred to a Crown Court? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that the spirit of the Welsh Language Act does not mean that cases in Wales are not to be heard in the Welsh language?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot give a factual answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question. I will try to find the answer for him. As for his second question, the use of Welsh in the courts is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Prison Building

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the progress of the prison building programme.

Mr. Maudling: Good progress is being made. I will with permission circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Can my right hon. Friend say something about the London prisons? Is not it both urgent and desirable to close down Pentonville and Brixton as soon as possible and to build a new London prison by the end of the 1970s?

Mr. Maudling: The difficulty is that prison accommodation in this country is so heavily overcrowded that we must concentrate first on reducing the number of prisoners sharing cells. That will take a long time, despite the rapidly increased prison-building programme. Only then shall we be able to dispose of old-fashioned accommodation.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to reduce the number of people on remand in custody? I know of one case where a

PRISON BUILDING PROGRAMME (ENGLAND AND WALFS)


At the end of the financial year 1971–72 work was in progress on the following new establishments or extensions to existing establishments. The list indicates where buildings are already occupied


Place
Size and Type of Establishment


Acklington, Northumberland
…
…
450
Category C prison. First inmates April. 1972.


Dover, Kent
…
…
60
New borstal house.


Erlestoke, Wiltshire
…
…
100
Extension to Detention Centre.


Glen Parva, Leicestershire
…
…
840
Young Offender complex.


Haverigg, Cumberland
…
…
150
Extension to Category C prison.


Long Lartin, Worcestershire
…
…
492
Category B prison. First inmates January. 1971


Maidstone, Kent
…
…
115
Additions to prison.


Norwich, Norfolk
…
…
120
Extension to prison. First inmates January. 1972


Portland, Dorset
…
…
72
New borstal house.


Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire
…
…
80
Extension to remand centre.


Ranby, Nottinghamshire
…
…
375
Category C prison. First inmates June, 1971


Rochester, Kent
…
…
60
New borstal house.


Rochester, Kent
…
…
120
New remand centre.


Thorp Arch, West Riding
…
…
75
Extension to remand centre.


Wrabness, Essex
…
…
816
Category C prison.


Work was also in progress on the complete redevelopment of Holloway prison for women.

2. It is hoped that work will start in the financial year 1972–73 on the following new establishments Or extensions to existing establishments.


Place
Size and Type of Establishment


Blundeston, Suffolk
…
120
New cell block to prison.


Bristol, Gloucestershire
…
192
New cell block to prison.


Camp Hill, Isle of Wight
…
160
New cell block to prison.


Deerbolt, North Riding
…
420
Young offender establishment.


Denbury, Devon
…
484
Category C prison.


Hollesley Bay, Suffolk
…
185
New unit to borstal.


Lockwood, Oxfordshire
…
507
Category B prison.


Northeye, Sussex
…
200
Extension to Category C prison.


Norwich, Norfolk
…
60
Remand centre.


Stoke Heath, Shropshire
…
120
New borstal house.


Ulnes Walton, Lancashire
…
816
Category C prison.


The Verne, Dorset
…
160
New cell block to prison


Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
…
120
New borstal house.

man has been in Brixton prison since January, when he was arrested, and he is not likely to be tried until September or October of this year.

Mr. Maudling: We have been considering this. I said something about bail hostels a little while ago, and there are provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill which will help in this direction.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said about bail hostels. Will he consider the purchase of suitable buildings for this purpose to relieve overcrowding in our prisons? Has there been a review of the policy of sending prisoners to open prisons with a view to trying to fill them and relieve overcrowding, especially in local prisons and category C prisons?

Mr. Maudling: The second possibility is in our minds, but it has considerable difficulties in practice. I shall be glad to consider the first point.

Following is the information:

3. Planning clearance is held in principle for the following major schemes on which it is hoped to start work in the period 1973–74 to 1975–76.


Place
Size and Type of Establishment


Acklington, Northumberland
…
…
300
Young offender establishment.


Eastchurch, Kent
…
…
816
Category C prison.


Feltham, Middlesex
…
…
1,000
Young offender complex.


Featherstone, Staffordshire
…
…
484
Category C prison.


Gartree, Leicester
…
…
816
Category C prison.


Griston, Norfolk
…
…
484
Category C prison.


Hollesley Bay, Suffolk
…
…
300
Addition to young offender complex.


Low Newton, Durham
…
…
465
Category B prison.


Stocken Hall, Rutland
…
…
600
Young offender establishments.


Stradishall, Suffolk
…
…
500
Category C (later Category B) prison.


Tudworth Hall, West Riding
…
…
300
Young offender establishment.


West Mailing, Kent
…
…
450
Young offender establishment.

4. Planning clearance has been sought, or informal discussions opened with the planning authority, in respect of a number of further proposals including those listed below. If planning clearance is obtained it is hoped that a start could be made on these proposals in the period 1974–75–1976–77.


Place
Size and Type of Establishment


Bovingdon, Hertfordshire
…
…
…
…
484
Category C prison.


Duxford, Cambridgeshire
…
…
…
…
600
Young Offender establishment.


Everthorpe, East Riding
…
…
…
…
300
Young Offender establishment


Full Sutton, East Riding
…
…
…
…
465
Category B prison, and







484
Category C prison.


Hewell Grange, Worcestershire
…
…
…
…
300
Young Offender establishment.


North Coates, Lincolnshire
…
…
…
…
500
Category C (later Category B) prison.


North Weald, Essex
…
…
…
…
360
Remand centre.

5. A major part of the prison building programme will continue to be devoted to improvement of facilities at existing institutions. Some schemes providing more accommodation for inmates have been listed at 1 and 2 above. Other schemes provide new workshops, upgrading of works services, improved security and extensive refurbishing. Examples of schemes now in progress, or on which it is hoped to start work in the financial year 1972–73, are:


Cardiff
…
…
…
…
…
Improvements.


Chelmsford prison
…
…
…
…
…
Boiler house.


Exeter prison
…
…
…
…
…
Workshop


Kingston (Portsmouth) prison
…
…
…
…
…
Reconstruction.


Lincoln prison
…
…
…
…
…
Boiler house.


Liverpool prison
…
…
…
…
…
First phase of redevelopment.


Lewes prison
…
…
…
…
…
Workshop


Parkhurst prison
…
…
…
…
…
Association and dining facilities etc.


Reading prison
…
…
…
…
…
Reconstruction.


Stafford prison
…
…
…
…
…
Conversion of factory to workshop.


Wakefield prison
…
…
…
…
…
Gate and reception facilities.


Wandsworth prison
…
…
…
…
…
Gate and perimeter security.


Wormwood Scrubs prison
…
…
…
…
…
Improvements.


6. Expenditure on the erection and purchase of quarters for staff at existing establishments continues at a cost of over £2 million a year.

Adoption

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now give a more precise date when he expects to receive the report of the Committee inquiring into the law on adoption.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand that the Committee still hopes to submit its report by the end of July.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my hon. and learned Friend ask the Committee not to let the time table slip? Is he aware that while it deliberates, avoidable cases of heartbreak crop up at regular intervals? Surely it is overwhelmingly demonstrated that there is a need to introduce the

courts into the circuit so that the interests of the child may be given the same weight as the interests of the natural parents?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the Committee is aware of the importance of its work and the need to complete it as soon as possible. It produced a working paper in October, 1970. It has received evidence on the proposals set out in that paper. It is important that the Committee has the time that it feels necessary to produce well-considered recommendations on what is a very difficult subject.

Alimony

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will


give the number of letters for March, 1972 which he has received from women who have not been given alimony awarded by court order.

Mr. Carlisle: Six, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Cannot another look be taken at the possible rôle of the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security? Members of all parties still get these heartbreak letters, despite the measures that the Government have taken.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Any matter with regard to the Treasury he must put down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. John Fraser: With a negative income tax in the offing is not there a case for having discussions with the Treasury and the Department of Social Security to find a better way of ensuring that payments are made regularly and avoiding the waste of time and frustration of many wives entitled to receive maintenance who find that payments are irregular and that the method of collection from the court is very inconvenient?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the concern which is expressed on both sides of the House about the distressing cases of women relying on maintenance orders which are not complied with by their husbands. We have arranged for payment by post to meet the hon. Gentleman's last point. The Attachment of Earnings Act, 1971, strengthened the procedure for the use of the attachment of earnings. But the whole matter is being looked at by the committee under Maurice Finer set up by the previous Government.

Mr. Dalyell: When will it report?

Carlisle and District State Management Scheme

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the sale of State Management District public houses and hotels.

Mr. Carlisle: I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) on 17th April. —[Vol. 835, c. 29-30.]

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the prices the Government are getting for this public property? Is he satisfied with the rate at which he is flogging off these highly profitable public assets to the Tory Party's political friends?

Mr. Carlisle: That is about as abject nonsense as the hon. Gentleman spoke during a good deal of the Committee stage of the Bill. So far 34 sales have been made of the smaller public houses, and they have been accepted by the tenants or managers. If that is the type of sale by the Government to which the hon. Gentleman objects, I would reply that I am glad that we are providing opportunities for those tenants and managers to buy their own premises.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that many hon. Members on this side of the House would like to see a considerable speeding up in the process not merely of these sales but of bodies such as Thomas Cook?

Mr. Carlisle: Concerning these sales, as well as the smaller ones which have been made to individual tenants and managers, I am hoping that an announcement will soon be made regarding the sale of the remaining assets, which is to be done by public tender on the advice of the agents we appointed.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why should the State sell the pubs but save the Tote?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is asking two entirely different questions. The decision to sell off the public houses was made because the Government felt that they had and should have no part in the sale of liquor in a particular part of the country. The reason for endeavouring to make the Tote viable is that the Government believe that there are social reasons for continuing to provide an alternative method of betting for the punter than its being entirely in the hands of the individual bookmaker.

Metropolitan Police (Coloured Officers)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many coloured police officers are serving with the Metropolitan Police at present; and how many were serving in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Maudling: Twelve The numbers serving on 31st December in each year were: 1968, 3; 1969, 4; 1970, 7; and 1971, 11.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rate of recruitment is quite appalling and that urgent research ought to be undertaken into why the figures are so disappointing? Does he recognise that recruitment of coloured people into the police might be one of the best ways of eliminating so much of the mutual suspicion which now exists between the police and the immigrant community?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that the figures are disappointing. They have been at this kind of level for many years now. Research into the reasons for this would be a complex operation. I am satisfied that chief officers of police generally, including the Metropolitan Police, are anxious to do all that they can to recruit more coloured people into the police forces.

Mr. Fowler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although this is undoubtedly a difficult problem, the number of police recruited reflects the number of applicants and the number of applications which are made? Does he further agree that the Metropolitan Police are anxious to recruit more coloured policemen into the service and that, therefore, any suggestion that this shows that there is some bias in recruitment policy is entirely wrong?

Mr. Maudling: Yes. I think that that is absolutely right.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As the figures are so low and as it is so important to have good relations between the police and the immigrant community, should not special efforts be made to recruit from schools which have a high proportion of immigrant children? May I also suggest the possibility of considering whether an immigrant should be attached on a civilian basis to those forces which have to deal with many immigrant cases?

Mr. Maudling: Special efforts are being and have been made for some time in areas where there is a substantial immigrant population. I shall gladly examine the hon. Lady's suggestions.

Heroin

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the origin of the heroin at present obtainable on the black market in England and Wales.

Mr. Lane: According to reports made to my right hon. Friend, most of the illicit heroin recently detected in the United Kingdom comes from Hong Kong.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be a danger to the community at large if a small, closely knit group of expatriates controlled this wholesale market? Does he further agree that recently the police have done extremely well in curtailing this trade, whatever the national origins of the people engaging in it?

Mr. Lane: Yes, I agree. So far this year 34 arrests for unlawful possession of Chinese heroin have been made by the Metropolitan Police. At the same time, we are looking at new ways of cooperating with the Hong Kong authorities at the other end.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the original source from which the heroin comes?

Mr. Lane: The original source is the opium poppy, but there are different ways in which heroin reaches the user.

Shoplifting

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in his examination of the problem of shoplifting from supermarkets.

Mr. Carlisle: I am not in a position to add to what was said in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 27th January.—[Vol. 829, c 1604-5.]

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but I hope that he will not mind my continuing to press the point. How soon does he expect his report to be ready. Is he aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the increase in shoplifting due to the methods of trading of supermarkets and the many social problems resulting there from?

Mr. Carlisle: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say when the working party will report. Of course, its report will be made to the Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. and learned Friend remember that phrase in the Lord's Prayer,
And lead us not into temptation",
when looking at the report? Does he accept that many companies in this respect deserve much of the shoplifting from which they suffer?

Mr. Carlisle: I remember that sentence all the time.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister assure us that when discussing this pernicious problem he will take into consideration the many innocent people who have been wrongly apprehended? Will he also consider that such people should have some means of obtaining restitution for being falsely accused of something which they have not done?

Mr. Carlisle: Prosecutions are not matters for my right hon. Friend; they are either for the police authority which brings the prosecution or, indeed, for the store which chooses to bring a private prosecution. There are great safeguards for the individual if he believes that he has been either falsely imprisoned or wrongly prosecuted as a result of proceedings which are brought.

Electoral Registers

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the next electoral registers to be published as early as possible before 15th February, 1973.

Mr. Carlisle: Since elections to the new county councils are to take place in March, electoral registration officers can be counted on to make special efforts to publish early next year.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. As these elections are held 28 days after publication of the electoral registers, and as the electoral registers invariably do not come out before 15th February, will he give an undertaking that they come out and are published at least on 1st February?

Mr. Carlisle: The 15th February is the latest date for publication of electoral registers. They can, of course, be published earlier. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that, as a result of representations which have been made, the Government have decided that the proposed date of 15th March for the elections should be postponed.

Probation Officers (London Weighting Allowance)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet completed his consideration of the possibility of paying the same London weighting allowance to probation officers working in all 12 of the Inner London Boroughs.

Mr. Maudling: Not yet, Sir. I recently put an alternative proposal to the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service, but they found it unacceptable.

Mr. Hunt: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what possible justification there can be for excluding probation officers working in four boroughs—Hammersmith. Wandsworth, Lewisham and Greenwich—from the London weighting allowance? Is it not bound to have an adverse effect on both morale and recruitment? Will he remedy this absurd anomaly?

Mr. Maudling: The justification for the Government's offer is that it is precisely in line with the London weighting allowance currently being paid to administrative, professional and clerical staffs of London borough councils, including social workers. I should add that this matter has not been resolved. I have only just received the rejection of our alternative proposal, and I am considering it.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has been relieved of the burden of Northern Ireland, may I ask him to speed up consideration of a matter which is causing great anxiety in the probation service and is regarded by it as an acute injustice? May I suggest that, unless he acts quickly, there will be a loss of further experienced officers to some of the London boroughs?

Mr. Maudling: The Government's offer is based on the existing practice


for the London addition to the salary of probation officers to be based on the weighting allowance in the London boroughs. At the same time, I shall be happy to get the matter out of the way. It is a source of irritation to many people and should be dealt with.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that to use the fact that some people are unjustly treated as a reason for treating unjustly probation officers in the borough of which I represent part is not very helpful when the borough is short of probation officers and needs them urgently?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that it is any business of mine that other people regard it as unjust.

Fire Extinguishers (Sale)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit the doorstep sales of mini fire extinguishers.

Mr. Lane: No, Sir.

Mr. Huckfield: Does not the hon. Gentleman regard it as scandalous that thousands of people are kidding themselves that their cars, caravans, boats and even houses are protected, when most of these things would not even put out a lighted match? Will the hon. Gentleman now accept the representations that have been made to him by countless fire officers and the British Safety Council and ban these things immediately, and in particular prohibit their doorstep sale?

Mr. Lane: No, Sir. I know of the the considerations which have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that at present we should be justified in imposing a ban such as he suggests. Most of the public have the common sense to realise that these things have only limited use. What we are trying to do is to devise a simple voluntary labeling scheme, which will help.

Mr. Costain: Will my hon. Friend accept that that answer is not satisfactory? Will he take some steps to see that home safety committees of local authorities are aware of this danger and that proper publicity is given to it?

Mr. Lane: I shall consider the matter further. All I am saying is that I am not prepared, on what I see now, to suggest legislation to prohibit their sale.

Mr. Huckfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Clifford and Errole Jordan

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will delay the proposed deportation of Clifford and Errole Jordan pending further examination of their request for temporary stay permits.

Mr. Lane: I have written to my hon. Friend. Having reviewed the whole case, I can find no grounds for advising my right hon. Friend to allow these two young men to remain here any longer.

Mr. Dykes: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulties in the necessity of implementing the rules and law governing immigration, but would not it be possible for him to look at these cases again, even at this late hour? Is he aware that these two constituents of mine are the subject of earnest and sincere requests by their respective employers that they should be allowed a further extension of their stay? I hope that my hon. Friend will look at this again.

Mr. Lane: I am aware of these considerations. I have looked right back through the history of this case, which my hon. Friend knows better than I do. In view of all the past history, and the fact that they have undoubtedly tried to flout the immigration rules, I am afraid that I cannot suggest that the decision should be altered. I remind my hon. Friend that these cases have been to appeal and that both the adjudicator and the tribunal upheld our decision.

Street Gambling

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of convictions for illegal street gambling in the Metropolitan Police area during the last 12 months.

Mr. Carlisle: The statistics are not yet available, I am obtaining them and shall write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Is he not aware of the vast amount of illegal card playing which is taking place in many parts of London, and at which many people, especially overseas visitors, are being fleeced of their money? As the individuals who run these games readily resort to both abuse and violence, is it not time that the Minister asked the Metropolitan Police to take sterner action against these individuals?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. Gaming in the street is prohibited by Section 5 of the Gaming Act, 1968, and the police may proceed under various other provisions. I understand that they do so with regard to getting the individual bound over and applying for his recognisance to be estreated in respect of a subsequent offence. When the figures are available I shall look at them and at what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say why the Metropolitan Police can, and do, immediately take action if demonstrators cause an obstruction? Action is taken immediately, and the demonstrators are heavily fined. But the people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) take their little boxes and set themselves up for business at street corners every day of the week and nothing seems to be done about that. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest to the police that they should treat these people in the same way as they do working-class demonstrators.

Mr. Carlisle: I repudiate, as I am sure would the House, the hon. Gentleman's final comment, which implies bias by the police. Under the Gaming Act, the maximum penalty for this offence is £50. There is power to take proceedings for obstruction under the Police Acts and I gather that the Metropolitan Police do that from time to time.

Illegal Organisations

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

if he will list the organisations in Great Britain which are illegal under the provisions of a statute.

Mr. Maudling: I am not aware of any.

Mr. Reed: Has there ever been any?

Mr. Maudling: Not so far as we have been able to trace from our study of the Statutes.

Service Voters

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Service voters have been recorded in the Registers of Electors for each of the past five years.

Mr. Carlisle: The figures are, 225,278 in 1968; 210,866 in 1969; 142,189 in 1970; 92,156 in 1971; and 105,426 in 1972.

Mr. Steel: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those national figures reflect what I find in my constituency, namely, that the number of Service voters is only 40 per cent. of what it was in 1969, despite the lowering of the voting age to 18, and the additional qualification of British Council personnel? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look into why this has happened, and why so many Service men appear to be losing the right to vote?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is right on the facts, but the figures are not entirely comparable, because previously there may have been on the register people who had left the Service, but who were registered as Service voters. Nevertheless, the Government are concerned about the rate of registration of individual Service voters, and this matter is being referred to Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Criminal Law Revision Committee

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee.

Mr. Maudling: On the assumption that the hon. Member has in mind the Committee's forthcoming report on evidence, I would refer him to the replies given on 18th and 20th April to Questions by the


hon. and learned members for Southport (Mr. Percival) and Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin).—[Vol. 835, c. 82-130.]

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread public disquiet about proposals to abolish the police caution and to require the accused to enter the witness box? Would he not agree that the withdrawal of the police caution at the moment when the investigation is least public would be a dangerous and retrograde step which would undermine the rights and liberties of the individual?

Mr. Maudling: I do not see why there should be widespread public concern about a report which has not yet been made.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: But the right hon. Gentleman is not as naive as that. There have been a number of Press leaks about what this report is said to contain, and one of them is that there should be an extension of the right to put in the previous convictions of an accused person. Would the right hon. Gentleman please note that that would be bitterly contested from this side of the House, as a grave abuse of the rights of the accused?

Mr. Maudling: I have already pointed out that some reports about likely recommendations of the committee are inaccurate. I suggest that we wait to see what the report does recommend.

Police (Complaints)

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were made against the police in forces in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police, in each of the last three years; and what proportion of these complaints were substantiated.

Mr. Maudling: There were 11,814 in 1969; 12,044 in 1970; and 12,271 in 1971. The proportions were 102 per cent., 8·9 per cent. and 8·7 per cent.

Mr. Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the current criticism of the police, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the figures show that, generally, the standards of the police are exceptionally high in this matter? Would he not also

agree that the figures indicate that many of the complaints are made either irresponsibly or with malice?

Mr. Maudling: I think that is true. It is essential that all complaints should be investigated, and they are, but it is all too easy to make complaints. It is a one-way option. If someone is in trouble with the police, he makes a complaint. If he succeeds he wins. If he does not succeed, he does not lose.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I accept that the police are often wrongly accused by those who make charges against them, but I am sure that the Home Secretary appreciates the necessity of retaining public confidence in police practice. In view of that, may I ask whether he has given any consideration to the possibility of some independent element in police inquiries, or some form of appeal to an independent ombudsman?

Mr. Maudling: I dealt with this whole question when I made a statement in the House not long ago. If it is a serious offence, and the complaint involves possible criminal proceedings, the independent Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for investigating it.

Mr. Buck: Can my right hon. Friend say how many commendations and how many letters of appreciation have been received over a similar period? There are large numbers of them, and they often far outstrip the number of complaints, certainly in my county.

Mr. Maudling: I shall be happy to give those figures if my hon. Friend puts down a Question.

Mr. J. T. Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many complaints he has received from the Police Federation and organisations representing the police forces in this country about the notorious circular published by the Home Office some years ago entitled "How to make a complaint against the police"? Has the circular been amended? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me and from others who have taken an interest in this matter that there is deep resentment about the terms in which the circular was drafted, and that it has come into the possession of many of the criminal classes who have grossly abused its terms?

Mr. Maudling: I would require notice of that question because I believe that the circular in question was issued by the previous Administration.

Prisoners (Welsh Language Facilities)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange a religious service in the Welsh language every Sunday for Welsh speaking prisoners at Walton Gaol.

Mr. Carlisle: Arrangements have been made for a Welsh-speaking minister of religion to conduct a service in Welsh once a fortnight when there are prisoners who wish to attend.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. As biblical quotations are the order of the day, may I ask him to bear in mind the verse that where two or three are gathered together, it might help towards their reform?

Mr. Carlisle: In this prison there are at the moment 19 gathered together.

Remand Home for Women (Birmingham)

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further progress has been made towards finding a site in Birmingham for a remand home for women.

Mr. Carlisle: Birmingham Corporation has suggested that a site near Winson Green prison might be suitable for a women's remand centre. A feasibility study will now be carried out.

Mrs. Fisher: While thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him to remember that this is a redevelopment area and that a site is not yet available on which to build? Is he aware that this will result in a further lengthy period of delay before this urgently required remand home in the city is established?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of that. This site, regrettably, is not likely to be available until 1975. It is for that reason that we have taken certain interim steps in regard to overnight accommodation at Birmingham Prison. However, we believe that the long-term solution must be a purpose-built remand centre and

we are looking at a site which has been suggested to us by Birmingham Corporation.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his answer is not good enough? Far more urgent steps must be taken to find remand accommodation in Birmingham and so save the present inconvenience to the service and prisoners, many of whom have to be remanded in Holloway. Will he take another look at this matter and treat it with the utmost urgency?

Mr. Carlisle: Although the hon. Gentleman says that my answer is not good enough, I understand that the whole cause of this problem arose during the period of the Labour Government, when a decision was taken to withdraw the existing remand home in Birmingham. We are trying to find a replacement site, but one is not easy to acquire. I am looking into the matter and I assure the House that I am aware of the problem.

Contribution Orders

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deparament what sums were recovered under the contribution orders made in 1970 and included in Table XVII (b) of the Criminal Statistics in England and Wales for 1970, in respect of each of the categories of courts listed in that Table.

Mr. Carlisle: The information is not available in the form requested. In 1970 the total amount recovered was £149,630.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is still a modest proportion of the total of £218,000 ordered to be recovered? Are these order worth the cost of collection, or might not everyone's interest be better served if, where a person of modest means requires assistance in a legal case, it is made available unconditionally?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not comparing like with like. My answer related to the amount recovered during 1970. His figure of £218,000 relates to the amount ordered to be paid; and as most of it is paid on an instalment basis, a great deal of it may not yet have been recovered.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In view of the considerable number of contribution orders made by the courts, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to say why the courts still insist on refusing legal aid, particularly the magistrates' courts? Will he please look into this matter?

Mr. Carlisle: The take-up of legal aid in the magistrates' courts alone doubled between 1967 and 1970. The cost of legal aid in the magistrates' courts from 1965 to 1970 increased more than tenfold.

Metropolitan Police (Establishment)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total establishment of the Metropolitan Police; and what was their total strength in June, 1970 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Maudling: The authorised establishment is 26,055. The strength was 20,872 on 30th June, 1970, and 21,431 on 26th March, 1972.

Sir R. Russell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increase which those figures show. Can he hold out any hope of still further increases?

Mr. Maudling: The increases are welcome, but I would certainly like to see a much more substantial increase, particularly in the Metropolitan area, and all possible steps are being taken to this end.

Asians (Entry Into United Kingdom)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Asians holding United Kingdom passports have been admitted to the United Kingdom during the months of January, February and March, 1972, respectively; and what recent instructions have been issued to immigration officers about this category of immigrant.

Mr. Maudling: In January, 1,667 and in February, 1,434 United Kingdom passport holders were admitted from East Africa for all purposes. Figures for March are not yet available. In addition, 36 arrived in January from India without entry documents, 15 in February and 25 in March. No recent instructions have been issued to immigration officers about United Kingdom passport holders.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that reply mean that my right hon. Friend can refute the Press reports that instructions were issued that unauthorised immigrants should be admitted, rather than go to the expense and troble of repatriation?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly. No recent instructions have been issued in this matter. We have been following previous custom.

Sir D. Renton: To what extent will these passport holders get employment in this country and how many dependants will they be bringing?

Mr. Maudling: If they are allowed to remain here permanently, it will, of course, be desirable that they should take up employment and, in accordance with our policy generally in regard to Commonwealth immigrants, be allowed to bring their families.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Home Secretary please accept the thanks of hon. Members on this side of the House for the compassion he has shown in dealing with this difficult problem, which eluded the last Administration but in respect of which we hope there will be success, even under this one?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful for any comment of that kind. We have made some progress, but it would be dishonest of me to suggest that we have solved the problem finally. A number of matters remain to be sorted out.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Mr. Lamond: asked the Prime Minister why he has appointed an additional Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave last Tuesday to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 835, c. 1269-70.]

Mr. Lamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I strongly support his action in sending some assistance to this Department, which has been unable to cope with the problem of rising prices? Is he aware that when I forwarded a


letter from one of my constituents, an old-age pensioner, complaining about a 30 per cent. increase in the price of pre-packed sweets, the Department's only comment was to suggest that he should take it up with the shopkeeper? Has the right hon. Gentleman decided to switch his attack from trade unionists to small shopkeepers as the people responsible for rising prices?

The Prime Minister: Anyone is entitled to shop around to find the best prices. [Interruption.] The purpose of increasing the number of Ministers in this Department was so that in the increasing number of discussions taking place in Brussels it should be possible for Ministers properly to defend the interests of British farmers and British housewives.

Mr. Redmond: What success has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had in reducing the increase in food prices?

The Prime Minister: The success which we have achieved in the last year in the reduction of the rate of increase of prices is well known, however much hon. Gentlemen opposite may dislike it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the British people should shop around, may I ask him why he does not hold a General Election and let them shop around for some decent leaders?

The Prime Minister: Nobody could deny that the Opposition would offer them a choice. This gives me an opportunity to congratulate the new Deputy Leader of the Labour Party on having been elected to that position. May I say how satisfactory it is to see another former Patronage Secretary moving so quickly up the rungs?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The two Departments work very closely

together, at both Ministerial and official level.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would my right hon. Friend agree that while in principle it is highly undesirable to have no-go areas in any British city, in practice these have existed for months, and that nothing should be done at the moment to jeopardise the peace initiatives of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which are now beginning to produce encouraging results?

The Prime Minister: In answering a supplementary question last Tuesday I said that of course it is desirable that the whole of the United Kingdom should be policed in exactly the same way. That must be our purpose. Since we took over direct responsibility in Northern Ireland, no-go areas have not been allowed to be set up in Belfast. This has been the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is well known—although it is regrettable—that there have been areas in Londonderry which have been to all intents and purposes no-go areas for more than a year now, probably for two years. It is also true that those same areas were not policed in any normal way for many years before that. We believe that the way to obtain a solution is by a combination of political moves, which we are now making, and of efficient policing.

Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us expected a statement today from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the lifting of the ban on marches and the possibility of a political amnesty for those who have taken part in recent marches? When will such a statement be made to the House?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has been having discussions with all those concerned about the question of marches, and is giving urgent consideration to it. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement in the very near future.

Captain Orr: On the question of co-ordination, whatever may be the coordination between the Ministers, will my right hon. Friend examine the conflicting statements that sometimes come from the Army and the police? In particular, will


my right hon. Friend personally look at the questions surrounding the obscene torture and murder of my constituent, Corporal Elliott, and the differing statements that have been made about this? Will my right hon. Friend think carefully about the desirability of ordering an inquiry into this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am perfectly prepared to consider any conflicting statements to which my hon. and gallant Friend draws my attention. If he would like to let me have that information, I can arrange to have it examined at once.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the Prime Minister answered a Question about the no-go areas last week, it seemed to some of us that there was a slight but important difference of emphasis on whether troops should go into the Bogside from the forthright statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he is wholeheartedly behind the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement that it is not the Government's policy to send the Army into the no-go areas?

The Prime Minister: A statement to this effect was made in an article in the Press last Sunday which misquoted the reply which I had given to the House. There is absolutely no difference between my right hon. Friend and the rest of my colleagues in the Cabinet on this question. Our attitude is at one.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Minister for Housing and Construction.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on Tuesday to a Question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter).—[Vol. 835, c. 1271.]

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is not the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend has presided over the worst house price inflation that this country has ever seen—a 47 per cent. increase in London in 1971 and still worsening? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his

right hon. Friend has presided over the most appalling decline in local authority building and now proposes to preside over the doubling of council rents? Are these suitable qualifications for being a member of his Government.

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. Under my right hon. Friend, total housing starts in 1971 were 8 per cent. up on 1970; private housing starts in 1971 were 26 per cent. up on 1970; the number of building society advances was 21 per cent. up in 1971 on 1970; the amount of money advanced was 35 per cent. up in 1971 on 1970; the number of improvement grants—234,000—in 1971 was 30 per cent. up on 1970; three times as many council houses were sold in 1971 as in 1970; and new orders for construction work in 1971 were 11 per cent. up on 1970. That is a record which the Labour Government certainly could not equal.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Instead of their attacking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, would it not be more constructive in dealing with this problem if hon. Members opposite were to withdraw their own pig-headed opposition to the sale of council houses?

The Prime Minister: There is a substantial body of evidence that a large number of tenants wish to buy their own council houses, and arrangements can be made for them to do so. Local authorities have been given full powers to permit this, and it is the Government's hope that where the demand exists, local authorities will be prepared to agree to these sales.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the rise in the price of new houses last year was 21 per cent. in a single year, against 2 per cent. in our last year of office? Is he aware that in the first quarter of this year the rise is running at a rate of nearly 30 per cent.? Is he aware that this is a result of the Government's own decisions on land and on housing, in total contradistinction to the promise which he made at the last election about house prices?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be dealing with these matters in the debate


which is to follow. The situation was quite clear under the right hon. Gentleman's Government. The houses were not being built and, because of the financial restrictions of his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, mortgages were not available for people to buy their houses. That is the difference between his Administration and ours.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the resentment from the benches opposite directed at the Minister for Housing and Construction is because he has been factual and robust and hon. Members opposite are not accustomed to such straightforward treatment?

The Prime Minister: They have had two years to get used to it. I think they will become accustomed to it in time.

Mr. Marks: Does not the Prime Minister agree that his right hon. Friend's insistence that councils should raise their rents by £1 in October whether they want to or not is contrary to what the Prime Minister is saying about rising prices and is contrary to what industry and the trade unions have said? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister got rid of this Minister on this score?

The Prime Minister: When does the hon. Gentleman intend to remind the House that in the total number of local authority tenants there are 1¾million who will get rebates under this scheme, and there are at least another 750,000 private tenants who, for the first time under any Government, will get rent allowances under this scheme? Those are the people who are benefiting, quite apart from the additional public funds which are available for clearing the slums and providing special houses for disabled and old people.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERR BRANDT

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his discussions with Herr Brandt during the latter's recent visit.

The Prime Minister: My discussion with Herr Brandt covered a wide range of subjects, including the European Summit Conference in October and East-West relations. The details are confidential, but I am glad to say that we remain in agreement on all the main issues of inter-

national policy with which our two countries are concerned.

Mr. Blaker: Are there not signs of a growing recognition on the part of the Community countries of the need for a common regional industrial policy to supplement national policies? Would not this development be greatly to our advantage? Did my right hon. Friend discuss that matter with Herr Brandt?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we had a discussion of considerable length on the question of the development of regional policy, because this will be one of the major items discussed at the Summit in October. We recognised that, whereas so far in the Community the main objective of regional policy has been to deal with agricultural areas in difficulty, with the enlarged Community it will be necessary to change the balance and for policy to be concerned with the development of some of the older industrial regions.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Prime Minister convey the congratulations of the House to Herr Brandt on his decisive victory in today's vote? Turning to the constructive aspects of his talks with the German Chancellor, did the Prime Minister discuss British official participation in the European airbus programme and in the development of a European computer industry based on ICL technology?

The Prime Minister: We discussed the future of European industrial development and the nature of European companies. In that context we discussed both aerospace and the computer industries. We did not have any detailed discussion about changing the existing basis of production of the airbus.
As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the German Chancellor has always studiously refrained from commenting, in public at any rate, on the misfortune of Her Majesty's Opposition; and I do not propose to discuss German affairs.

Mr. Marten: When the Prime Minister was dealing with the Common Market in answer to a supplementary question on his first Question today, he said that an extra Minister would be able to go to Brussels to defend the British housewife. Who is attacking the British housewife in Brussels?

The Prime Minister: Should there be any movement to deal with agricultural prices and so on we believe that we should have a Minister there so that he can safeguard British interests at all times. I should have thought that that was something that my hon. Friend would very much desire.

Mr. Thorpe: Did the Prime Minister discuss with Herr Brandt, the success of whose Labour-Liberal coalition today many of us will welcome, the ratification of the treaties with East Europe and did he make plain that Her Majesty's Government do not hold the view that their ratification would damage NATO or the Six, as has been widely suggested in parts of Europe? Finally, without unduly interfering in the internal affairs of another country, did the Prime Minister also make plain to Herr Brandt that many of us deplore the way in which, for purely internal party reasons, the Leader of the Opposition—in West Germany—has sought to impair European unity which the people of Europe wish to see?

The Prime Minister: The Government's support for the policy of Ostpolitik is well known and it was not necessary for me to re-emphasise it to Herr Brandt. I am a little surprised that the Leader of the Liberal Party should say that ratification of the treaties was widely thought in Europe to be damaging to NATO or European unity. I know that this is not the case and I do not believe that it is thought to be the case in this country. I have no evidence that it is a widespread view in Europe. Ratification of the Berlin agreements is a matter for the Bundestag and not one in which we can interfere or on which we can comment. On the Berlin treaties, I made it plain that as a Government we stand ready to sign these forthwith as soon as there has been ratification of the Eastern treaties.

Mr. Shore: Would the Prime Minister tell us whether in the discussions on regional policy he was able to put on the agenda the question of the problems facing some industrial areas as distinct from the more traditional concern of the Common Market countries with agricultural areas of decline? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether in any possible development of regional policy there

would be the requirement of unanimous agreement among all the member countries before anything was brought into effect?

Mr. Heath: Yes. The need for a regional policy for industrial areas is firmly agreed between us. This has always been the view of the British Government, and this is the basis on which it will be discussed at the summit meeting. Naturally at the summit there will be need for agreement between heads of Government on future lines of policy, and I do not think there will be any difficulty about regional policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (WELSH LANGUAGE)

Mr. Fred Evans: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make immediate arrangements for the four girl students jailed last week for contempt of court, and presently at Pucklechurch remand centre, Bristol, to have facilities for conversing with their visitors in their own language, and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): In accordance with the Prison Rules, visits must be conducted within the sight and hearing of a prison officer. There is no Welsh-speaking woman officer at Pucklechurch remand centre to supervise visits during which Welsh is spoken. I do not think it would be reasonable to make special arrangements in respect of these prisoners, all of whom also speak English. They are free to correspond in Welsh if they wish to do so.

Mr. Evans: Will the Home Secretary accept that this answer will cause supreme contempt in Wales? If he is able to keep prisoners at Pucklechurch, it is equally possible for him to make special arrangements for them to use their own language to their visitors. Is it beyond the wit of the Home Office to go as far as Cardiff to secure such a warder? Will the Home Secretary accept that it is an inalienable human right to speak one's own language, and it is this kind of insensitivity by his Department, as evidenced in recent remarks by the Lord Chancellor, that forces moderates to become extremists? Will he


undertake to make immediate arrangemenments either to have these girls removed to a remand centre in Wales where these facilities exist or to provide the facilities at Pucklechurch?

Mr. Maudling: The practical difficulty is that very few women and girls are remanded in custody and Pucklechurch has to cover not only South Wales but also the whole of the south-west of England. There is no Welsh-speaking interpreter available at that centre. The girls are entirely free to correspond in Welsh as much as they like without any limitation, but the present rules have been established and it seems sensible to me that conversations should take place in such circumstances that they can be heard by a prison officer.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Home Secretary aware that his prison regulations also say that visits will take place in the most humane conditions? Does he believe that until he is able to provide accommodation for these girls in Wales, where there are Welsh-speaking officers he is justified in the unreasonable and rigid stance that he has adopted this afternoon? Will he exercise his discretion and not withhold the ordinary human right that people shall be able to converse in their own language?

Mr. Maudling: I do not see anything inhuman in requiring these girls, while they are in prison for contempt of court, to converse with visitors in the language of the United Kingdom, a language with which they are wholly conversant.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Home Secretary's response to my right hon. Friend's question was deplorable and unworthy of him. Most Welsh people do not subscribe to extreme or violent action in breach of the law. They believe, nevertheless, that persons in custody should not be denied the right, if they want it, to converse in their own language with visitors in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Welsh Language Act, 1967. Will the Home Secretary take action to remove this impediment immediately?

Mr. Maudling: In this particular circumstance I do not think it unreasonable that conversations—as opposed to correspondence, which is not fettered in any way—should take place in the language of the country as a whole in order that

the prison officer should know what is being said.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the scope for asking Private Notice Questions widened? 1 thought there had to be some element of urgency. While this was a very important subject, it seemed to be applicable to a Written Answer or even an Adjournment debate. I merely wondered whether the scope had been widened so that we could use it on other occasions.

Mr. Speaker: The scope is entirely a matter for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for next week will be tas follows:

MONDAY, 1ST MAY. As already announced, consideration of the Motion in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), which will be continued until 10 o'clock.

Afterwards, Motion on the Anti-Dumping Duty Order, and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.

TUESDAY, 2ND MAY. Consideration of a timetable Motion on the European Communities Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 3RD MAY. Progress on the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill.

THURSDAY, 4TH MAY. Report stage of the Housing Finance Bill.

FRIDAY, 5TH MAY. Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 8TH MAY. Third Reading of the Housing Finance Bill.

Motion on the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's decision to impose a guillotine on the European Communities Bill will be regarded


in the House and in the country as an intolerable abrogation of the rights of the House, and that, whatever view any hon. Member may take of the terms negotiated, the Bill robs Parliament of its right of debate on fundamental constitutional issues? Is it now the Government's view that, on top of that, they should gag the House even on the main Bill itself by restricting the timetable? Will he confirm that it is not the Government's intention in the Motion to set up a Business Committee, as is usual in these matters, but that within the Motion there will be an allocation of time for the individual Clauses? Is he aware that it will be necessary for Amendments to be moved, Amendments which will affect the rights of every hon. Member, not just the two Front Benches, and that there will need to be time to move them, debate them, and vote on them? It seems necessary to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is a protector not only of Government interests in the House but, primarily, of the rights of hon. Members throughout the House. In view of that, will he now reconsider this dictatorial decision?

Mr. Carr: I am aware also that the House has a duty to see that all parts of the Bill—the more important the Bill, the more important the duty is—are adequately debated. It has become clear from the quite exceptional number of days and hours of debate given to the Bill, and before the Bill to the basic subject, that there will be no adequate plan of debate unless there is an allocation of time, laying down a reasonable plan of debate. That is the purpose of the Government's Motion. When it is tabled, I think the House and, indeed, the country will see that the time allocated is not only generous but wholly exceptional compared with anything that has gone before. It is our intention that the Motion shall contain, built into the Motion itself, an allocation of time for each and every Clause. The object of that is not to limit the rights of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The object is to ensure that each and every Clause and Schedule shall have a reasonable amount of time for debate, and, therefore, we shall avoid what I think we are all aware of sometimes when we have timetable Motions, which is having

many things jumbled up together at the end. If the right hon. Gentleman would wish to make representations before the tabling of the Motion, I shall be glad to hear them.

Mr. Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman states the principle of adequate time for the debate of all the Clauses, a principle which he can mouth, but which he has not implemented in either his present or his previous capacity, how does he justify the fact that we are already under guillotine on the Housing Finance Bill, with totally inadequate time for that? Does he consider there will be a better facility for the House to debate all the Clauses adequately under a guillotine than if we continued with what has happened so far, a free consideration of all the Clauses of the Bill?

Mr. Carr: Having considered the amount of time that has been taken, and bearing in mind that after 88 hours of consideration in Committee we have reached subsection (1) of Clause 2, and that the House by a substantial majority has expressed itself strongly in favour of implementing the terms of the agreement as well as the principle of entry into the Common Market. I am convinced that it is the wish of the House that that decision shall be given effect. I am satisfied that it would not, and could not, be given effect unless we now adopt a very reasonable, generous and wholly exceptional plan of debate.

Sir Robin Turton: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in seeking to impose a timetable on a constitutional Measure he is breaking parliamentary tradition? I appreciate how he has said he will discharge this grave responsibility, but will he bear in mind that Clause 2 is of much greater importance to the country than any other Clause in the Bill? Therefore, will he secure adequate time to debate it and consult not merely the Opposition but all those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides who have a very grave concern about the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir. Of course I realise that this is a very serious step to take. I believe that a plan of debate is essential if the will of Parliament, as


expressed last October, is to be implemented and at the same time each and every Clause and Schedule of the Bill is to have a reasonable time for debate. I and the Government would have wished that we could arrive at a voluntary agreement about what that plan of debate might be. I make no complaint about it, but, unfortunately, such a voluntary agreement has not proved possible. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that we had to take this step.
I remind my right hon. Friend that there have already been two days on the first subsection of Clause 2. I think that he and the House will find when they see the Motion that full account is taken of the special importance of the Clause.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Bill on which he is introducing the Motion—a unique Bill, as he himself has said—is one for which the Government had a majority of only eight on Second Reading? [Interruption.] That is the relevant matter on the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate also that the arrangement of the timetable that he is proposing must be a matter for the House to discuss in the open, and must not be settled in any hugger-mugger way behind the scenes, particularly because he has introduced the guillotine at what might be described as the most sensitive part of the most significant Clause in the Bill, which changes the whole constitution of the country?
Since it is so difficult for some of us, and perhaps for others in the country, to understand how it can be claimed that the full-hearted consent of Parliament could be secured only by the operation of the guillotine, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that in the debate on Tuesday the Prime Minister will be here—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the Leader of the Opposition."]

Mr. Peter Rost: And both your Front Benches.

Mr. Foot: I know that others may not think so, but some of us regard this as an extremely important question. Since some of us cannot see how it can be understood that it can be claimed that the full-hearted consent of Parliament has been secured for a Measure which is passed through its stages only

with the operation of the guillotine, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Prime Minister will be here on Tuesday to defend his pledges to his country and to defend his personal honour?

Mr. Carr: It would be intriguing to follow the hon. Gentleman in his rather topsy-turvy description of events. Entry into Europe on these terms has been approved by a very large majority of the House. Had there been a free vote on the Opposition side as there was on this side, the majority would have been overwhelming. We understand that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who share the leadership of the Opposition on the conduct of the Bill, wish to defeat the principle and the decision of the House. It is perfectly honourable to have that wish. But it has become apparent that we shall not be able to implement the will of Parliament, freely expressed by a substantial majority, without a plan of debate. That is what we are doing, and I believe that that is what the country would wish us to do.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Speaker, you permitted me—[Interruption.] On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You permitted me to put a question to the Leader of the House on a matter of supreme importance to the country—

Mr. James Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is on a point of order and must be heard.

Mr. Foot: You permitted me to put to the Leader of the House a perfectly simple question concerning the business of the House next week. Is the Prime Minister going to be here to defend his word to the country?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The custom of the House is that I should take questions


from one side and then the other. I have indicated my decision. I will not call the hon. Member again now, but will later on, if he rises.

Dame Irene Ward: Could I ask my right hon. Friend to help me? I would like a statement next week about the position of C. A. Parsons on Tyneside, which is causing very heavy unemployment. Can he explain to me why it is that we are able to have statements about the Upper Clyde and about Merseyside, where we are putting in Government money, but not about C. A. Parsons, where unemployment is very heavy? I cannot get a Question on the Order Paper because Government money is not involved. I want a statement about the position of C. A. Parsons. Unemployment is just as important to Tyneside as it is to Clydeside and Merseyside.

Mr. Carr: Perhaps I can have a word with my hon. Friend to see exactly what it is that she wants a statement about. I will do my best to see that in one way or the other she gets the information which she requires, but I cannot promise a statement next week.

Mr. Bob Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the convention of the House that if an hon. Member seeks to raise an issue affecting the constituency of another hon. Member, he or she should give notice to that hon. Member. In this case the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has given me no notice, nor, as far as I am aware, has she given notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). In fact, the hon. Lady should know that it does not need a statement —

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for the Chair.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker —

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order has already been put to me. It is the convention that if an hon. Member is going to make a personal attack or refer to another hon. Member, notice should be given, but the ruling goes no further than that.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have constituents who work in C. A. Parsons.

Mr. Bob Brown: A damned sight more of my constituents work there than the constituents of the hon. Lady.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister going to be here next Tuesday to speak in the debate on thte guillotine Motion?

Mr. Carr: That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend to decide. But one thing I do know is that he is never far from where responsibility lies.

Mr. Kimball: What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to safeguard the rights of hon. Members on a Friday? Is he aware that the Order Paper last Friday, 21st April, gave no indication that the Bill set down as Order No. 21 would do any more than come from the Standing Committee to the Floor of the House? When a similar manoeuvre was done with the Civil Evidence Bill it went no further than the Floor of the House and proper notice was given. The subsequent stages followed in succeeding weeks. No one objects to what happened last week in principle, but there was no warning on the Order Paper that it could happen.

Mr. Carr: I understand the point. What happened on Friday was entirely within the rules of order and procedure. If it were to be changed, it would be necessary for us to change our procedure, which is not a matter, directly at least, for me. But I understand that hon. Members may feel concerned. I have read what you, Mr. Speaker, said at the time concerning the fact that an important matter can go through without warning. Perhaps the Select Committee on Procedure, which has the right to look into these matters, could take note of this and give it consideration.

Mr. C. Pannell: No less than five Bills have gone through this Parliament without opposition in exactly the way complained of by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), but he and his hon. Friends have only just awakened to the fact. The only new factor is the relevation of the ineptitude of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Carr: That may or may not be true, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) is usually pretty alert on these matters. We all agree that what happened was fully within the procedures of the House. But it is not just a matter of this case. We should consider whether it is right for things to go through without a general warning to hon. Members as a whole. The Select Committee on Procedure may wish to consider it.

Sir F. Bennett: A number of questions have been asked about whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be here next Tuesday. It is a matter for him and others to decide. Can my right hon. Friend give any indication whether we shall have the presence of the right hon. Gentleman who originally acceded. by his application for entry, to the Rome Treaty, or is his return from the United States only temporary?

Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that that is no part of my responsibility.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: While we are on the subject of private Members' business on a Friday, will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the Night Assemblies Bill, which came out of Committee only yesterday and is apparently to be set down for tomorrow's business? Hon. Members will only be able to put down starred Amendments for Report stage. Yet the Bill has aroused a great deal of comment in the country and has caused fears about civil liberties.

Mr. Carr: I believe—I would like to look into this—that I can assure the hon. Member and the House that it is not proposed to take that Bill until tomorrow week, not tomorrow

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Reverting to next Tuesday's business, would my right hon. Friend say whether he endorses the judgment of The Times this morning that the quality of debate on this Bill has been high and that there has been no delay? Will he say whether there is any precedent for guillotining a Bill the proceedings of which are the subject of such tributes and in respect of which no allegation of delay or obstruction is, or could be, made?

Mr. Carr: I certainly wish to make no criticism of the quality of debate, which

I believe has been high. I think, however, that all observers must admit that it has also been extremely long. I do not think any of us can forget some of the early proceedings on the Bill. The time still to be allocated for the proper debate I have described will in itself be exceptionally long. I have no doubt that the total amount of time on the Floor of the House will be exceptional not only by all past standards but for any Bill of any comparable nature and will be adequate to proper debate.

Mr. Fred Evans: You are settling a hundred years of history.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must confess myself in difficulty. I am wondering how I can protect the Opposition Supply day.

Mr. Orme: Would the right hon. Gentlemen tell us whether the decision to go ahead with the guillotine means that he has been guaranteed the support, for instance, of the Liberal Party to see that this iniquitous Measure is passed? Has it said that it will sacrifice its liberal traditions to help impose the guillotine on this House? As the Prime Minister finds this matter so amusing, would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to carry out his promise not only to Parliament but to the people? Does he not think that the British people are entitled to decide this and not a laughing Prime Minister?

Mr. Carr: I am bound to say that 1 find that question about the intentions of the Liberal Party rather surprising from an hon. Member who has not been, to my belief, notable for his support of free votes on this issue. I have, of course, received no undertaking from the Liberal Party on this. It is entirely up to it how it votes on the night.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend say how much time will be granted for the debate to take place on Monday week on the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order? Will he arrange before this takes place for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement in this House next week explaining why the shooting of the IRA terrorist leader Joseph M'Gann was referred to the Director of Public


Prosecutions, a step which has caused consternation and amazement to the soldiers and to law-abiding people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Carr: I will certainly draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the damage that this announcement of the guillotine will do, not only to his own reputation and that of the Prime Minister, but also to the reputation of this House and to the whole respect for democracy in this country?

Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. Friend look again at Thursday's business, when we are to discuss the Housing Finance Bill? This is also the day when we shall be holding municipal elections. Would it not be possible to rearrange business so that those who are interested in this vital housing legislation will be able to get back to their constituencies on Thursday?

Mr. Carr: I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that we must make progress with the Bill on that day.

Mr. Maclennan: Returning to the European Communities Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House who provided him with his majority of 112 take the view that this is a major Bill involving every single Member of this House and that we are not happy with any time-tabling procedure which would have the effect of stifling the fullest possible debate? Is he aware that many of us, I believe every one of us on this side of the House, believes that there would be no difficulty about this if the Government were to prove less reluctant to withdraw other repugnant legislation and make way for the fullest debate on this Bill?

Mr. Carr: I am afraid that I simply cannot accept that. We have sought to obtain some voluntary arrangements and have been quite unable to do so, certainly not because of the time taken by other legislation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, however much

one may support entry into the Common Market, no one in this House views the guillotine with anything but a certain amount of distaste—as a disagreeable necessity? Is he aware, therefore, that it is essential that the allocation of time should be uniquely generous?

Mr. Carr: I agree with my hon. Friend about that, and I believe it will be found that the time allocated is uniquely generous. When the total time that this House will have spent on the Bill is added up it will be seen to be totally exceptional.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the Government try to force through so revolutionary a Bill as this without a mandate a great many people, even though the Measure were to be passed, will treat it as having no constitutional or moral force?

Mr. Carr: I do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman has always been consistent, unlike some of his hon. and right hon. Friend. He naturally wishes to use the right of speech in this House to prevent the Bill ever becoming law. That is contrary to the strongly supported desire of this House as expressed in the vote last October. That has to be recognised.

Mr. Redmond: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the whole country will support this step provided that it is seen that there is ample time for full discussion? Is he aware that the only people who will cry "Gag" and talk about the guillotine will be those who want to make political capital out of it? Is it not worth remembering that it was a Liberal Government which introduced timetable Motions to deal with people from the Irish Nationalist Party?

Mr. Carr: I do not think I will be drawn on the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but I believe that when Parliament has debated the principles and the details of an important matter of this kind for as long as we have in this House, then, the basic decision having been taken, it is in the national interest that reasonable decisions should be taken provided that there is adequate time for a full debate, which there will be.

Mr. Lawson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of some of my hon.


Friends asking for time on the Floor of the House to debate the changes that are working out in local government in Scotland? Will he say that we can be found such time to debate this important matter?

[That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for failing to provide an opportunity to debate the Reform of Local Government in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4583, 16th February, 1971, Royal Commission on form of Local Government in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4150, 23rd September, 1969.]

Mr. Carr: I have seen the Motion. If the hon. Member looks at the timing of the reports and legislation for England, Wales and Scotland he can expect that there will be time in due course for this but certainly not in the immediate future.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. There is an important debate to come in which at least three Privy Councillors and many Opposition back benchers wish to take part. I think we must move on.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was told by the Press both yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening that a timetable Motion on the European Communities Bill would be announced today. When I discussed this through the usual channels, it was denied. Each Thursday the business for next week is announced and we have the opportunity of raising points upon it. It is becoming an almost everyday occurrence for the Government to make announcements to the Press in preference to Members of Parliament. On this occasion the Government have made matters worse in that they have denied the announcement of a timetable Motion and have then announced it. Somewhere in official circles untruths are being told. On being challenged last night the Government should either have admitted it or issued a statement denying it. A reference to all the newspapers this morning will show that my comments are correct.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman is correct, I am not sure what I can do about it. However, I will consider what he has said.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. A question was

raised by the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) about what happened last Friday on the Sunday Theatre (No. 2) Bill. Would it be proper for you, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should remove the Motions which he has put down to block Private Members' Bills? I have received many congratulations—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

NORTHERN IRELAND (CORPORAL JAMES ELLIOTT)

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the setting up of an inquiry into the events surrounding the kidnapping and murder of Corporal James Elliott of the Ulster Defence Regiment by the Irish Republican Army and the subsequent recovery of his body".
This matter is specific. The House is aware of the brutal murder of Corporal Elliott, but may not be aware that his relatives have had to take the unprecedented action of issuing a statement concerning the way in which his body was tortured and mutilated. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has already mentioned this matter in the House today. As Corporal Elliott was one of his constituents, I have already notified the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South of my intention to raise this matter, and I have his support.
The Army has issued conflicting reports about this matter, and so have the police, to the great distress of the wife of the man who was tortured and so brutally murdered, and to the great distress of the whole neighbourhood.
The matter is important because it must be seen, now that this Parliament has responsibility for matters in Northern Ireland, that each side of the fence is equally treated. As the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has mentioned, there is to be an inquiry by the Director of Public Prosecutions into the shooting of Mr. Joe M'Gann, a leader of the IRA. The suggestion is made that one of the soldiers who fired on M'Gann may be prosecuted in the courts for


manslaughter. It is, therefore, imperative that it should be seen that if there is an inquiry into the shooting of an IRA leader there should also be an inquiry into the brutal and dastardly murder of a member of Her Majesty's Forces.
I suggest to the House that it could help to ease the situation in Northern Ireland by acceding to my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was courteous enough to give me some hours notice of his intention to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon, so I have had an opportunity of considering it.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely.
the setting up of an inquiry into the events surrounding the kidnapping and murder of Corporal James Elliott of the Ulster Defence Regiment by the Irish Republican Army and the subsequent recovery of his body.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have also heard what has taken place today in the House during Questions. I must make it clear, as I have done before, that this is only a procedural decision for me, and my decision is no comment upon the merits of the matter. I have to decide whether discussion of this matter, which I think everyone will regard as a tragic affair, should have precedence over the business of the House. I am afraid that I cannot submit the application to the House. There are other ways in which the hon. Member can pursue this matter of an inquiry.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

LAND AND HOUSES (PRICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

4.16 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: As the House is aware, my hon. and right hon. Friends had originally intended to discuss Bangladesh today but, in view of the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs earlier this week, we are content to leave the matter for the moment and, because of its urgency, we are raising instead the problem of land and house prices.
Despite intense pressure from the Opposition over many weeks, the Secretary of State for the Environment has been unwilling hitherto to make a statement. However, yesterday, with the storm cloud of this debate hanging over his head, he made a statement—to every newspaper in the country. At least we know what his priorities are—

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I had no contact with any newspaper or any journalists throughout the whole of yesterday.

Mr. Silkin: Of course I fully accept that, but somebody in the right hon. Gentleman's Department must have. It will be interesting to see, when the Secretary of State intervenes, whether his views accord with the widely reported statements about what he intends to say this afternoon.
This is an urgent problem—and what a problem it is! For most of the young people of our country the possibility of affording even the simplest modern home is receding day by day. I recall—and the Secretary of State will recall—a debate in this House in January, 1970, when he —the then hon. Member for Worcester—attacked the Labour Government by pointing out that in the six years since we had been in office the monthly mortgage repayment over a 25-year period of


a loan of 80 per cent. required to buy an average modern house had risen from £18·30 to £32. This, in his view, put house purchase beyond the means of the average industrial worker. The hon. Member for Worcester was going to change all that. He did change it. Today the repayment on an average modern house it not £32 but £48·86. This means that the ordinary industrial worker now has to put down £500 more on deposit for the house and pay nearly £14 a month more than he did when the right hon. Gentleman made his attack—and he is supposed to do all that on an average income that has risen by only £6 a week, a figure quite insufficient to get him that extra mortgage. It is the singular achievement of this Administration that the monthly repayment on an average modern house has risen by as much in under two years as it did in the whole six years of the Labour Government.
A large and overwhelming contributory factor to this rise is the price of housing land, which is going up by an average of £250 per acre per week. I should like to give the House many examples. Many have been given to me. I should like to give the House some very large extracts from the file of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the leading authority on gazumping in this country. I think it will suffice, however, if I give three simple examples of the cost of housing land in this country.
First, London: just a short while ago —it will have gone up since then—less than an acre of housing land was sold at Hampstead for £350,000 per acre. It may be argued that London is different again; the Secretary of State has a special problem in London; but the percentage increase is going up all over the country. According to the Building Societies' Gazette figures, in Bishops Stortford one and a half acres was sold recently for £108,000 and in the area which was always the slowest in the increase of land prices, Norfolk, land recently changed hands at £10,000 an acre—a very large sum indeed for that area.
During the course of that debate in January, 1970, which I spoke about the right hon. Gentleman gave us his prescription—it was a 10-point prescription, as he may recall—for bringing down the

price of land and the price of houses. To be fair to him, he was not very long in office before he was applying his remedy. He started with a number of suggestions, which his Government took into account. I want to say what they were because the various matters which I am going to retail have had, it seems to me, only a peripheral effect upon the prices of land and houses. They certainly have not caused them to go up, but equally, they have not radically affected them.
The right hon. Gentleman started with the sale of council houses. This is not the time to argue about the merits or demerits of the sale of council houses. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that we on this side of the House have our views, and he has his. But we are entitled to ask to what extent it has affected the prices of houses. What one has to realise is that the sale of council houses does not create a new supply of houses but merely substitutes for one form of land tenure, if one is looking at it in terms of the supply of houses, another form of land tenure, so that it has no effect whatever on the overall prices.
Then the right hon. Gentleman mentioned SET. According to the figures he then gave, the average price of a house would have been reduced by £60. He said that if the whole of SET were abolished the price would be reduced by £120. It is not for me to quarrel with him. These are figures which I have used and have had to deal with, so I am not going to quarrel with him on that. I am going to assume—which is a great assumption—that every builder in the country, when SET was halved, proceeded to knock down the price of the house he was building.
Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about stamp duty on mortgage debts. His right hon. Friend is going to extend that, he says, to houses under £10,000. Again we are talking about small sums. Then he talked about flexibility in the option mortgage scheme, mortgage advances, and the greater supply of mortgage funds.
I calculate—the right hon. Gentleman may disagree but he cannot disagree very much—that if one gives him the benefit of all these figures the effect on the price of a house is rather less than £240, and that is a saving that only 40 days


of this Government suffice totally to erode. That is the effect of the measures taken by the Government in the past on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech of January, 1970, about what they proposed to do. I shall be interested, as I always am, to hear what the Secretary of State has to say, but I am going to assume that he is not going to differ very much from the Press.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one thing that the Government have not done is to implement the report of the Prices and Incomes Board on conveyancing charges, which they have now had in their hands for a whole year?

Mr. Silkin: As a matter of fact, my figure of £240 included a reduction on conveyancing charges of £35, my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear.
To come back to what the Secretary of State is proposing to do, according to the best-informed information in the best-informed Press in the world, he intends to release more land. That is to say, he is going to go to the local authorities and say "You should get rid of the land you hold which you are not essentially and at this moment using and sell it to private developers so that they can get on with the job". But he has tried this before. He tried it a very long time ago in his Circular 10/70 of 14th December, 1970, which is over 18 months ago. He has had some degree of success. I think local authorities are releasing land. I do not know that he is going to get very much more by a further circular, whatever number he may get.
A second proposed change is the speedup of planning permissions; that is to say—and here we shall want to look very carefully indeed into what the right hon. Gentleman may have in mind—it is suggested that if one gives more planning permissions, these almost automatically and in a very short time convert themselves into houses.
I have given the House a few examples of the prices of land in this country. Perhaps I may now give the House, if it will not become too weary, some examples of

the planning permission situation at this moment. In advance of houses actually being built—I have taken these areas totally at random—Southend has already given 2,600 more building permissions; Buckinghamshire 3,000 more; Kent 2,750 more; Berkshire 2,760 more. These figures, as the Secretary of State is well aware, come from the Standing Conference of the London and South-East Regional Planning. These are the figures, and this situation is being mirrored all over the country. There is no dearth of planning permits, and it is not this that is the cause of the high rise in prices.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman had ministerial responsibility for this over a number of years. Surely he is not telling the House, based on that experience, that he has no knowledge whether delay in issuing permits has any effect on building or the speed of building? Is he saying that?

Mr. Silkin: In courtesy to the House I think I had better not give way after this, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course I am not saying that. I am merely saying that to pretend that there is such an acute planning permission crisis at this moment is totally to misunderstand the situation. Of course procedures may be shortened, but procedures that preserve planning ought to be preserved.
The other suggestion is that the Secretary of State will announce to-day that he is going to nibble at the green belt. That is what I would call it. He may call it doing away with the eyesores in the green belt, or cabbage patches, or whatever words he prefers.
I should like to refer to Circular 1070 again and read what I think were very relevant words at that time, and are still relevant today. When discussing the release of land in paragraph 6 at page 2, the Secretary of State said:
The Secretary of State accordingly looks to local planning authorities to make generous additional releases wherever this can be done without detriment to other important planning objectives, e.g. the safeguarding of green belts.
Suddenly, after 18 months, to discover eyesores in the green belts would show that there was considerable myosis in December, 1970. I hope that the Secretary of State will kill that suggestion


stone dead. All these measures, including the speeding-up of planning permission or nibbling at the green belt, will not cheapen land or housing, but will cheapen planning.
So far I have given examples where the Government have done very little to affect the price of houses and land. I now want to show how the Secretary of State and his colleagues, by their own actions and deeds, have succeeded effectively in changing the price of land. What they have done is to increase it.
I will give two examples. The first example relates to the Housing Finance Bill. During the Committee stage on that Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Alford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), in discussing Clause 35, which introduces general decontrol, pointed out that the effect of decontrol would be to increase the rent coming in from decontrolled houses by 250 per cent.—in other words, by 2·5 times. If the rent coming in from a private house is 2½ times what it was then, it does not require a mathematical genius to realise that the value of that property has gone up by the same amount. The capital value of the property has gone up 2½ times because the rent coming in has increased 2½times. Addded to this situation is the hope—and in many cases, unfortunately, the expectation—that a tenanted house will become vacant. That is another factor which tends to increase the price of houses.
Hon. Members with constituencies in London and other great conurbations have seen this process taking place for a long time; it is spreading like a disease. I am at the moment looking at the matter not from the tenants' point of view but from the point of view of the owner of the house who will be receiving a 2½ times increase. The person who buys not only knows that he will get that additional revenue, but hopes that if the house becomes vacant—and he will do his best to see that it does—he will get an extra bonanza. The inevitable effect will be that the value of second-hand and older houses will push up the price of modern houses. This is what the Government have done by their own will. They have run in the face of all

common sense, and this has added to the crises and dangers that beset us.
Practically the first thing the Secretary of State did on 27th July, 1970, when assuming office was to come to this House and announce the abolition of the Land Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad hon. Members opposite are cheering, but they will not cheer so loudly when they hear the statistics. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason why the Land Commission was being abolished was that it had failed to stabilise land prices. Certainly the Secretary of State has done a marvellous job in stabilising land prices, when we have experienced the biggest increases the country has ever seen!
What is the situation today? According to the Department's own figures, in the first six months of 1970—that is, between the right hon. Gentleman's speech in January, 1970, in which he forecast the abolition of the Land Commission, and the General Election in June—the price of land, as the Land Commission was beginning to get fully into its stride, fell by 4 per cent. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State would have every right to laugh if he could cause a fall of 4 per cent. This was the first fall in land prices for at least 10 years.
If the Secretary of State would like the full figures, I can give them to him; they were issued by his own Department. In the first 12 months immediately following the abolition of the Land Commission the price of land rose by 22 per cent. The Secretary of State can see this from his own Department's figures. The current figure is running at about between 30 and 33½ per cent.—the highest figure ever known.
The problem is not one of the release of land. A Labour Government, instead of doing what the Secretary of State seeks to do, would have tackled the problem in a totally different way. The Land Commission was creating a national bank of land. What the Secretary of State is doing by his suggested release of land from local authorities is merely proposing a large number of small private banks of land, responsible to nobody except their shareholders, whose aim is the collection of profit and is not concerned with the price of land.
It must be emphasised that not every planning permission is converted into house building. A local authority may release land and sell it to a developer with the blessing of the Secretary of State, but it is no guarantee that a house will go up there. I note that Mr. Michael Latham, the Director of the House-Builders Federation, has told developers of land to sell quickly because, he says, one never knows what will happen in future. But they will not sell that land unless the most urgent action is taken and they will not sell it because it is more profitable to hang on to it. If the Secretary of State has not yet learned the lesson of Centre Point, he should attend a seminar on the topic.
Relying on market forces produces a curious contradiction. It becomes more profitable not to use land than to make it fully productive. So far from urging local authorities to release land, the Labour Government, through the Land Commission and the local authorities, would have acquired very much more land so that the price of public building and private building alike could have been held down. What will now happen is that the Government will be driven from expediency to expediency. They will take more and more panic measures, but they will only tinker with the problem.
The people of this country will no longer tolerate patchwork measures, however ingeniously publicised. What they look for now is a root and branch solution. They will not get it from the right hon. Gentleman, from the present Government or from the Conservative Party. They will only get such a solution from a Labour Government.

4.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) will realise by the time I have completed my speech that, alas, many of the subgestions made in the Press and on which he based his speech are not suggestions which have come from my Department.
The right hon. Gentleman gave two basic reasons for the increase in land prices and sought to base a future Labour Government's policy on those reasons. The first is the interference with house prices created by putting private sector

houses over to fair rents. It is remarkable to hear a representative of the Labour Party say that, when in the last two years in office of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite 1¼ million houses were put on a fair rent basis—

Mr. John Silkin: It is general decontrol which has forced up prices, as it did in 1957.

Mr. Walker: The argument used was that rents would be allowed to increase over the private sector and that this would affect house prices. Yet it was a Labour Government which positively decided to increase 1¼ million rents in the private sector, because they considered that it was in the interest of improving the quality of housing.
The second factor is the abolition of the Land Commission. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must have had his tongue in his cheek when he used the Land Commission argument. He said that the last six months of the Land Commission were triumphant and that this was the reason why we saw a stabilisation of land prices in that period. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will analyse the total effectiveness of the Land Commission. When we decided to wind it up in June, 1970, after three years of existence, it had gathered together the brilliant total of 2,200 acres of land, of which it had disposed of for development a total of 318 acres. Nearly the whole of what was disposed of was in areas of low housing demand. That was the remarkable triumph of the Land Commission.
As one who debated the Land Commission probably more than anyone else, I may say that we used to watch Mr. Kenneth Robinson, the former right hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, defending the Land Commission and constantly being stabbed in the back by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). When we saw that sad spectacle week after week, we did not gain the feeling that the Minister then responsible for the Land Commission was altogether enthusiastic about its prospects. Nor was there a passionate fight by the Labour Party when it disappeared. Obviously the country will be interested to hear from the right hon. Member for Deptford that, if re-elected, a Labour Government will restore the Land Commission.


I shall be very happy if that forms part of the General Election manifesto of the Labour Party.
There is only one reason why land prices were stabilised in 1970—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Tell us what the Government intend to do.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that one thing that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will not want to hear is an analysis of why land prices fell in 1970. Nevertheless, it is important for this debate to understand it.
The reason was that the last Labour Government tackled the problem in effect in terms of reducing and stabilising land prices by reducing substantially the demand for houses. In the period when the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) was responsible, there was a considerable decline in new housing starts. In 1964 247,000 new houses were started in the private sector. That was not a new peak. We reached the peak position in terms of new housing starts in 1967. From 1967, however, the number of new housing starts declined year after year. When I took over responsiblity for housing in June, 1970, I inherited the fastest declining housebuilding programme in Europe. All over the country builders were going bankrupt. The demand for housing had dropped. From a total of 247,000starts in 1964, the last year of the Labour Government saw a drop to 165,000.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I expected that the right hon. Gentleman would argue that the best way to bring down prices was to build more houses. To some extent, I agree with him. But will he admit that, although more private houses were built last year, far fewer council houses were built and that last month saw the lowest figure in any month for 23 years? The gross total of housing is going up only very slightly. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to build more houses and bring down prices, he ought to do it in the council sector instead of letting it fall as he is doing.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) will be pleased to know that starts in the public sector are increasing. The latest

figures are coming out tomorrow. Overall, there is a substantial increase.
The right hon. Member for Deptford quoted the speech in which I referred to the difficulty at that time for an industrial wage earner to purchase a house. Two factors made it difficult. The first was that the building societies were short of funds. When that happens, they tend to demand higher deposits and, for safety, they go for people with higher incomes. Those in the lower income groups are most adversely affected. By a combination of a statutory wage freeze, rising building costs, rising interest charges, and rising land prices, the Labour Government created this tremendous decline in demand.
When I took over responsibility for housing I decided that the most urgent need was for an increased demand in the private sector. To that end I have pursued a combination of measures. The right hon. Gentleman referred to them today. He said that in total they have had a marginal effect on prices. However, it is the sort of marginal effect which promotes increased demand. Since this Government came to office, as a result of our policies the building societies have had plenty of money, local mortgage restrictions have been lifted, and SET has been abolished. In addition, there have been factors like the abolition of the import surcharge on building materials, a substantial reduction in stamp duty, and the revival of the 100 per cent. mortgage scheme and of the mortgage option scheme. What is more, for the first time since there was last a Conservative Government the mortgage interest rate has come down. The result of all these measures has been a considerable increase in demand.
I hope that the House will measure the degree to which we have been successful. Tomorrow we shall publish the March housing figures. They disclose that the number of new starts in the private sector is 79 per cent. higher than in March, 1970, when the right hon. Member for Grimsby was responsible. For the first quarter of this year the figures are 56 per cent. higher than those of the first quarter of 1970.
I know that the result has been an increase in land and house prices. If one


stimulates demand to get the housing programme going again at last, there is a moment when the building industry, lacking confidence after three years of decline, waits to see whether the demand exists. When it recognises that actions have been taken to stimulate demand, the building industry starts trying to produce the houses. Builders turn to those pieces of land which are readily available for immediate development, with sewerage facilities and planning permission, and there is bidding between builders to get hold of them. That is why land prices have risen considerably recently.
In terms of land prices, in 1969 the last Government achieved the remarkable double of having a decline in the housebuilding programme and land prices going up 1 per cent. more than they did last year. In 1968 and 1969 together, land prices went up by 40 per cent. Do not let us gain the impression that land price rises are a novelty. The right hon. Member for Deptford knows a great deal about them.

Mr. John Silkin: Over a similar period under the right hon. Gentleman's administration the rise has been 53 per cent.

Mr. Walker: In 1971 the increase was 23 per cent. over 1970. Therefore, the position is that there is a period when, in order to stimulate a fast declining housebuilding programme, this action has taken place.
I want to outline this afternoon what I believe should be the Government's attitude towards the future supply of building land. From suggestions in the newspapers the right hon. Gentleman suggested that I would be announcing today some erosion of the green belt in contradiction of my previous circular. I want to put planning in this country, as I believe right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do, on a positive basis instead of the negative basis of the past. I do not believe that there is any difference between us.
The Labour Government prepared the "Strategic Plan for the South-East". We published that report and decided to pursue planning strategy on those lines.
At present, developers and builders are pressing, and have conducted a great

campaign, for the release of land. They have said that all that is needed is a speedy release of land, that much of the green belt is not up to standard, so why not build on that, and so on.
Traditionally, under Governments of both persuasions, when these pressures have built up—they are not new—the immediate reaction has been to weaken the planning system. Some of our worst ribbon development and urban sprawl is the result of Governments of both persuasions deciding to ease up on planning procedures and action. I do not intend to pursue that policy on this occasion.
It is important, in areas of high pressure, to put planning on a positive basis. Therefore, I should make it clear that there will be no easing up of our planning policies on the green belt and we will not allow bad developments of an urban sprawl nature in areas unsuited for and unserved by public transport facilities and such matters. We intend to pursue —the sooner the developers realise it and turn to those programmes the better—a positive regional planning strategy.
We published the "Strategic Plan for the South-East". Last October I gave approval to and announced the Government's policy on it. Within that strategy enough land is sensibly designated on the basis of good planning criteria to meet the housing and economic expansion needs of the South-East between now and the end of the century. I intend to see that developments take place within that strategy.
We hope later this year to complete a strategy for the Midlands. We have started one for the North-West, and we intend to start one later this year for the North-East. I hope that in the lifetime of this Parliament we shall complete regional planning strategies for the whole country.
Concerning Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will later today, in a Written Reply, be outlining some of the measures which he considers necessary in the spheres of land release and of housing problems in general. That is the basis on which I wish to pursue this policy.
In pursuing that policy a number of financial and administrative aspects can be improved to see that it develops at a more successful and faster rate. The first


is to give local authorities in areas designated as suitable for growth the financial resources to assemble land for development. A disadvantage which I have detected so far is that a number of very good planning authorities wishing to develop land find the task of assembling and holding on to that land while they assemble it very difficult. This was a task which the Land Commission had as one of its main objectives. In arguing against the Land Commission I always maintained that one of the great weaknesses was that it tended to incite hostility, rather than to obtain agreement, with local authorities, which resented its existence on a national level as it was a job that the local authorities could well do themselves.
I believe that there is now a need to provide loan sanction for local authorities which wish to assemble land in this way. At the moment, if they apply for loan sanction it comes out of their general allocation.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Concerning the assembly of land by local authorities, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see to it that if owners of land which a local authority wants to assemble are prepared to develop it within the authority's plans it will not be allowed to take it from them compulsorily in order to decide who develops it, rather than the original owners.

Mr. Walker: I will come to that important point later.
Therefore, I am making available to local authorities an additional £80 million to spend on assembling land which can be released in convenient parcels for very early private housing development. It will be a condition that the land is bought—[Interruption.]. I think that in the general interruption from the Opposition Front Bench hon. Gentlemen failed to hear what I said. I am making available to local authorities an additional £80 million to spend on assembling land which can be released in convenient parcels for very early private house development. It will be a condition that the land is bought within the next two years and that, if not already provided with water, sewerage, or other services, it will be serviced so that development can start within three years of the purchase.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—

Mr. Walker: I do not wish to give way.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose—

Mr. Walker: I am sorry. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) did not give way, for the good reason that this is a short debate. I have now given way twice.
I believe that this will remove one of the financial and administrative disadvantages which now exist.
Secondly, I shall allow local authorities to capitalise interest charges for up to five years on land which they purchase for private development, provided that the work is put in hand on site.
Thirdly, in view of the crucial importance of sewerage works, which often hold up the development of land which could otherwise be very suitable for building, my Department will grant loan sanctions for these works in connection with land assembly schemes, even in advance of need. This has not been the practice in the past.
In suitable circumstances, I shall be prepared to support local authorities in compulsory purchase applications for land assembly, especially where one landowner is preventing substantial development by holding out on an essential part of the land or where the land is in multiple ownership and in need of comprehensive development. This is for the purpose of going forward with private development. We are finding that there are a number of places where substantial schemes of development which could go ahead in accordance with the South-East planning strategy are delayed by one owner deciding to hold out and, therefore, ruining the whole scheme. It is wrong for major developments of this kind to be held up in this way.
These are all practical measures which the last Government failed to take.
There will be further measures in areas of land pressure. I have decided to allow substantial development to take place in a number of the established new towns in the South-East. We have already agreed basic plans for the development of Harlow. We are also having talks


with the local authorities concerned about Bracknell and Stevenage.
By allowing a policy of expansion in the new towns in the South-East, I think we shall achieve two results. First, we shall get a better balance in the new towns between owner-occupation and rented accommodation. In the past, most were developed on a rented accommodation basis only. This will enable us to get a better balance in the new towns.
Secondly, I envisage that as a result of these measures in the new towns we shall make available 5,000 acres of land by 1975—which is exactly twice the amount of land which the Land Commission bought in its three years of existence. I should like to make it clear that in the growth areas of the South-East we shall be pursuing a policy designed to see that, when planning applications are made in accordance with the growth strategy of the "Strategy Plan for the South-East" and, after that, in other regional planning strategies, priority is given to the degree of housing need and the manner in which it will fit into that need.
I am pleased to announce that the work which we commissioned for the study of the development of the dockland area of London will make available a substantial area for development in London. I was grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite for agreeing that we should carry out a full plan for that area to make sure that there was considerable environmental and amenity improvement in the East End of London. The report of the consultants will not be available until the end of this year, but I have had discussions with them, and they agree that already they have identified a number of areas in the dockland area which will fit into the total development and could be released for housing much earlier. I cannot give details, but hundreds of acres will become available.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Walker: I know the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I cannot comment in detail, but there are certain areas in which housing development can take place.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis rose—

Mr. Walker: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
More progress has been made on the release of land held by Government Departments and nationalised industries. Immediately on taking office the Government set up an inquiry, chaired by independent outside people, to look into all the land held by the Ministry of Defence. The inquiry's report will be completed by the end of this year, but the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed that in certain areas, where there is agreement on land that can be released for housing and where there is a housing need, he will try to release certain packages before the inquiry reports at the end of the year.
During the last three years British Railways have released £36 million worth of land, and they are examining their land resources from the point of view of releasing land more quickly and effectively. This consideration of land resources is being carried out in conjunction with my Department.
During the same period the National Coal Board has released 6,000 acres of land. The board is also doing a great deal of work in clearing derelict land, some of which may later be used for good housing purposes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be having further talks with the National Coal Board to see whether it can accelerate the release of land.
Immediately on taking office my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up an inquiry into the release of land held by hospital boards, and I am pleased to say that already in one or two areas substantial amounts of land have been released. This process will be accelerated, and I hope that other measures may be taken to encourage hospital boards to release further land.
There has been some reference to a kind of Domesday Book of land resources and availability. When the new local authorities come into being, I should like to see agreement being reached about a whole range of information which should be made available to ratepayers and other interested parties. In the past far too much information about the decision-making machinery of local government has not been readily available to the public. I am sure that both sides of the House agree that information on


such matters as planning permission, land upon which planning permission has been given, land held for local authority purposes, and so on, should be made available on an annual basis.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: When the right hon. Gentleman started talking about the release of land and the additional loan sanctions for local authorities to purchase land, that was confined to private development land. He has subsequently talked—and we are interested in this—about the dockland area and the release of land by public authorities. Will he confirm that that could be for either public or private sector development?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Local authorities apply for compulsory purchase orders for public sector housing, and that will continue. In the past, in trying to obtain the development of their towns or areas they have not used those powers to get private development under way. In the dockland area there will be public sector housing, and probably a blend of the two, which will be in the interests of that part of London.
There is a difference between the parties on this issue of council houses. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the sale of council houses to tenants makes no difference to the general demands on the private sector. I think that it does, and I intend to do everything I can to encourage the sale of council houses. I am pleased to say that last year the number of council houses sold rose from 6,000 to 17,000, and I hope that we shall be able to urge local authorities to be more active in making available to tenants the possibility of purchasing their houses.
On the question of providing information about land, I expect local authorities, with the additional financing facilities that I have made available, to join me, particularly in areas of great housing stress, in a positive approach to obtaining a much longer term land release policy. I have asked them to publish detailed information of the location and state of readiness of land—whether already allocated for housing or not—on which development can start within the next five years. I shall ask for undertakings that they will ensure that substantial amounts of land are provided with ser-

vices, where these do not already exist, and made available during the early part of the five years. I shall also seek indications from them within one year from now of the areas to be made available within the next seven to ten years, and I shall press them to make effective use of these new measures.
I believe that we can develop planning on a much more positive basis than ever before. In terms of land use, until now planning has been essentially a negative function. Local authorities have stated where it is not desirable for places to be built, but on a regional basis people have never said where development should take place. Considerable planning powers exist within both the central Government and local government. Although there are many complaints about them, in terms of their application I think that we have better planning machinery than exists in any other country in the world. We can use this planning machinery to develop positive regional policies in terms of land use that will stop ribbon development, urban sprawl and decay of the green belt, which has been typical of our urban development in the last decade.
I have no intention, as a result of the pressure of demand and the, as yet, lack of supply to meet that demand, in any way to deviate from developing this positive approach to planning. I regret the fact that as a result of stimulating demand the price of land and houses has risen, but it would be wrong, because of that, to neglect policies which I am sure are in the long-term interests of this country.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: Although this is the second opportunity that I have had of addressing the House since my return, the first occasion was a brief intervention on a technical matter related to the Housing Finance Bill. This is, therefore, the first chance that I have had of taking part in a general debate. May I, therefore, without begging the indulgence of the House for a second maiden speech—one can be a maiden only once—pay tribute to my predecessor.
I have the privilege of representing one of the greatest constituencies in Britain, and one that has made a great contribution to parliamentary Socialism. My predecessor, Mr. S. O. Davies, was a Member of the House for 34 years. He was


a magnificent person, in figure and personality, and even though many of us regretted the 1970 election result in Merthyr Tydfil, we honour him for the way in which he bucked the system. I therefore add my tribute to the many that have been paid to him.
One of the interesting things about having a spell of two years away from the House and then returning to it is to discover that in many ways things are the same, but that in other respects they have changed fundamentally, and nothing has changed more than the right hon. Gentleman's views on housing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said, more than two years ago the House heard the right hon. Gentleman's arrogant ten-point plan for curing the housing problem in Britain. There was no such certainty this afternoon. There was no such assurance from him. There was distinct unease and worry, and a realisation of the fact that, in spite of all the concessions that he has announced, he is still faced with the problem of high house prices and a housing shortage.
The right hon. Gentleman's announcement of new encouragement to local authorities to acquire land can only be described as the establishment of a local authority land commission. In other words, we are hearing the loud sound of Ministers eating their words. The Government are realising that instead of abolishing the Land Commission, which they did in a moment of doctrinaire pique, they should have given it greater powers.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I agree with my hon. Friend that encouragement to local authorities to take over land is to be welcomed. However, is he aware that this land will be bought not at its existing use value but at its current grossly inflated market price?

Mr. Rowlands: As always, I am in agreement with my hon. Friend on housing matters. Local authorities and public bodies will have to put their heads together to try to overcome this problem. We used to hear how private enterprise would solve the housing problem. The Government are now singing a very different tune.
We are seeing on the part of the right hon. Gentleman one of the biggest conversions since Paul was on the road to

Damascus. Nevertheless, one would not have imagined from his remarks that would-be house owners are having to pay enormously inflated prices. The right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the recent increase of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. and the graphic stories that appear daily in the newspapers about people queuing for flats and houses, with prices going up overnight.
In case the right hon. Gentleman lives in a dream world of his own, I will give him some of the housing facts of life. As a result of the recent by-election, I have found it necessary to sell my home and buy another. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I am about to describe is happening now, in April, 1972.
The whisper goes round that one is thinking of selling one's house. Almost as if would-be house owners have an underground means of communication, the telephone rings and there are knocks at the door from people saying. "Can we have your house? We hear you are selling ".
Within 24 hours of my wife and I deciding to sell, the telephone was ringing non-stop. People are no longer asking the price. That is not relevant these days. It is a question of clinching the deal before someone down the road gazumps them and the price goes up. These are today's housing facts of life which it is clear the right hon. Gentleman does not understand.
What good will the Secretary of State's proposals do to overcome this situation? What good are five-year plans? The problem is here and now. How many more people will be gazumped in the coming year or two, before even his modest proposals take effect? He and the Government have created this situation. Even the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame it on the last Labour Government. The bubble burst in March, 1971, and between then and December, 1971, prices rose by between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if I had allowed the decline which I inherited to continue house prices would have dropped?

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman should have intervened in the market, allowed local authorities to


acquire land, restricted land prices and prevented land hoarding. The land sharks are benefiting greatly from this boom. I assure the House that building contractors are not the main beneficiaries. They want to get on with the job of building homes.
Much of the trouble lies in the fact that land has been hoarded. There is a bull and bear market in land for housing and the right hon. Gentleman and his policies have done nothing to prevent it. Indeed, they have done everything to encourage it. He must take a direct personal and the Government must take a collective responsibility for the present state of affairs.
What horrifies me is the chance that we shall miss the boat again. The right hon. Gentleman has announced various proposals which may encourage new private house building in the coming 18 months to two years. I suspect that ironically, just as these houses are coming on to the market, building society funds will begin to dry up. There are already indications that by the end of the year building societies may find themselves short of money and unable to finance mortgages.
Imagine the situation if all the wonderful new houses of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken are available but would-be house owners cannot find mortgages with which to buy them. It is clear from the figures given by the Prime Minister at Question Time that building societies have been financing the inflation that has been occurring. I do not blame them for doing this. Indeed, they have been doing an invaluable service. But imagine the number of extra mortgages they could have made available if inflation of this magnitude had not occurred and the Government had taken steps earlier to stabilise house prices.
In South Wales there are terrible indications that building society funds will start to decline by the end of the year. The Western Mail recently carried a statement by the research officer of the Bristol and West Building Society saying:
We are apparently entering a period of declining investment.
He added that the experience of his society reflected the national picture.
If that is true, it seems that we shall find ourselves in the nightmarish situation of the building societies having financed

one of the greatest inflationary periods in house prices in our history but in the near future unable to make mortgages available because of a shortage of funds. I cannot think of a more terrible situation than young would-be house owners able to find homes but searching in vain for mortgages.
As though heaping irony upon irony, the day after that statement by the research office of the Bristol and West Building Society appeared in the Western Mail, we read a statement from the brick-makers to the effect that insufficient bricks would be available to finance the planned housing boom. I appreciate that that is a good old hoary one, but it illustrates what is happening in the Secretary of State's unplanned society and because of his unplanned housing policies.
This aspect has a Welsh connotation. We, too, have suffered from the rise in house prices, as the Secretary of State for Wales, who is in his place, will confirm. Incidentally, it is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman has not been attending the debates in Committee on the Housing Finance Bill. I am glad to see him here today.
In some parts of Wales house prices are not going up. Indeed, in some areas it is hard to sell houses because of unemployment and the lack of industrial and economic prospects. This is particularly true of some valley communities. Extreme bitterness is being expressed about the Government's proposed solution to the problem.
On the one hand we had in the Budget the so-called employment transfer scheme designed to encourage people to leave the valleys of Wales for the marvellous, planned regional areas of the country—the South East; Kent, Sussex and the Home Counties—for employment, while on the other hand people living in, for example, parts of my constituency are finding it difficult to sell their houses. Imagine these people pulling up their roots to come to the South East and bidding for a house in the market in, say, Surbiton, having been unable to sell their own houses in for example, Merthyr Tydfil. No employment transfer scheme can finance the difference in cost, or the human and social upheaval, involved in such a transfer and such a policy. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the housing problems of the South East or to


the housing, industrial and economic problems of my constituency?
Above all, the debate shows clearly that there is a direct responsibility resting on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for the present situation. The present situation has not happened by act of God. It did not happen completely independently of the Government. Direct blame must be attributed to the Government for it. It has caught householders, whether they pay rent to local authorities or whether they wish to buy their own homes. The Government have caught the young householder and the average family in a vicious pincer. On the one hand, the Government squeeze people living in rented accommodation and make them pay higher rents. On the other hand. because of soaring prices those wishing to buy houses of their own must pay fortunes for them.
It was a Conservative research officer who said that as a result of the "fair rents Bill" 35,000 new families were likely to be forced out of council rented accommodation into homes of their own. All that the right hon. Gentleman can say is that we must juggle with the houses we have and that people must buy their own council homes. That policy has nothing to do with the situation householders are in.
The best thing that the right hon. Gentleman can do is to come to the Dispatch Box and announce, first, that he will abandon the appalling Housing Finance Bill—that will at least prevent one section of the housing community from suffering needless and heartless rent increases. Second, he should intervene directly to control land and house prices with a view to ensuring that, when land comes on to the market, whether it is to be built on by local authorities or by private developers, the price of the resulting houses will be brought more under control.
That is what the housing policy should be, but it is not the housing policy of the right hon. Gentleman and the Tory Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Before calling on the next speaker, I wish to remind the House of the great number of right hon. and hon.

Members who hope to take part in this very short debate. I hope that they will adjust the length of their speeches accordingly.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) is clearly straight from the hustings. If he is trying to recapture a reputation that he had when he was in the House previously, it must be for being the fastest speaker, for he went through his speech at a great rate. I know that that meets your requirement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has learned little about the housing question and the problems associated with it since he last spoke in the Chamber. There is no immediate solution to the severe escalation which has occurred in land and house prices in the last twelve months.
I greatly welcome the steps my right hon. Friend has announced today. I know that my right hon. Friend is determined to see that they are implemented. Their implementation is an essential ingredient in what is proposed. Successive Governments have continually exhorted planning authorities, mainly county councils, to release land for development. I hope that there are common objectives in central government and local government to ensure proper planning and adequate infrastructure for residential development. Counties are understandably and rightly parochial and concerned to ensure that they are not overwhelmed with development and that they can progress their planned release of land over a number of years.
There is a contradiction which I think my right hon. Friend is trying to bridge between the policies hitherto followed by county councils, in the main, and policies required by the central Government if they are to achieve an expanding housing programme. This is a proper balance of political objectives. In the United Kingdom we expect in our administrative arrangements that there shall be an effective balancing of interests.
My right hon. Friend did not put the emphasis that I hoped that he would on the tardy planning procedures with which we must now contend. Planning


decisions are made far too slowly. There are frustrating delays, for perhaps good reasons, it is said, but one often doubts that when one examines the case closely. It takes far too long for appeals to be submitted, for the appellate procedure to be gone through, and for the Minister's decision to be given. It takes about three years to process a planning application.
If a county council or a planning authority does not like the Minister's decision, it can delay an application for a very long time on the detailed consents which must follow an outline planning approval following appeal procedures.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not true that vast numbers of housing permissions have been granted by local authorities, but they have not been used by builders, although the builders could use them if they wanted to do so?

Mr. Jones: I do not believe that there is substantial hoarding of land by developers. In view of the high interest rates which must be paid, what developer would pay the present high cost of land and then hold the land for longer than he absolutely must? Developers must phase their programmes over three to five years, so as to have continuity of development and employment for staff. In these circumstances, it is not right to criticise the holding of land for the three to five years involved in a rolling programme.
My right hon. Friend has suggested methods by which the housing programme can be speeded up. No additional legislation is suggested. We have not used the existing powers as effectively as we might have done in recent years. We could speed up development in new towns, and my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that this would be so. Where there is the likelihood of new town procedures, we should seek to make quick work of those as well. The Greater London Council is talking about two or three new towns. As to town expansion schemes, there must be a far greater recognition of the urgency of the situation on the part of the professionals in planning and the architects in the public service.
I draw a comparison between the towns and cities, on the one hand, and the counties, on the other. The towns and

cities have for many years adopted just the procedures that my right hon. Friend has said he now proposes to urge on the counties. The towns and large cities have aggregated land. They have gone into the land market and bought at current market prices. They have paid higher prices for land nearer the centre of town and lower prices for agricultural land on the outskirts of towns. As towns have grown, this land has been brought into development.
I have advocated for years that the counties should have applied this system. They should have enabled themselves to help the housing authorities in the urban and rural councils to have land available for council use and private development schemes. There is not the expertise in the county councils. There has not been a willingness to adopt the positive planning approach that county planning committees and county councils should bring to this problem.
Here I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We must end the negative approach to planning. Those who see the potential to develop must be given a positive permission to develop by the planning authorities. This could perfectly well be done but not immediately. This is why I say to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that although he urges immediate action of one sort or another, some of the things he said were irresponsible. I come from a brick making part of the country where factories were being closed down two or three years ago, in the last days of the Labour Government, because of inadequate building programmes. It takes time to bring brick factories back into production. Those that closed and thought they would never open again now have smoking chimneys, a sign that bricks are being produced.
I am glad that the Minister is placing the emphasis and responsibility for bringing land forward on the county councils as planning authorities and I am glad that the resources are to be made available to finance the assembling of land and the provision of the infrastructure required. The towns and cities have been doing this for years without the need for loan consent from central Government. They have used their own capital fund for the acquisition, replenishing their capital fund when it is right for


the land to be developed. In recommending this solution my right hon. Friend has looked at the success of this type of policy in the cities and he has now determined to introduce the system into the counties. I hope there will be a ready response.
The authorities will need to adopt a different attitude to planning development and planning applications. They will need to strengthen their staffs and to bring in the expertise which many of the cities already possess. Perhaps all this will flow from the Government's proposals for local government reform. Under those proposals the cities will go into the counties as top-tier authorities and this is where the cities can help to implement my right hon. Friend's proposals.
We want therefore to see co-operation on the basis that my right hon. Friend has suggested between central Government and the planning authorities, a rolling programme for 10 or 15 years. This must be our long-term objective. I hope that we shall see, as I believe we shall, a greater readiness by the authorities to enter into joint schemes with developers. Developers are able and willing to met the costs of infrastructure and the installation of public services for development. If this were required of them as part of the planning consent, it would have the effect of damping down the present high level of land prices. The obligation to meet the costs of servicing land, which are extra to the high values at which land is changing hands, would reduce the high levels of land prices.
I am sure that we need a positive, purposeful and continuing demand upon planning authorities and I am glad that this was the intention indicated in my right hon. Friend's closing remarks.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: May I respond to your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by confining myself to the scandal of land prices? The scandal has reached such proportions that it is prejudicing the Government's housing programme. The Financial Times says it "threatens to damage the revival of private house building". The Federation of Master Builders says that" small builders are being forced off the market", and we know that small builders build

half the houses. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers says that it could "lead to a housing slump". That is the situation we are facing.
I could add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said by giving examples of what is happening in the country. From a casual reading of the Press I have found examples of single plots of land selling at from between £12,500 and £20,000. I notice that in South Hampshire the average price per acre of building land is £40,000. I came across the case of five acres in Ashwell that went for £260,000 and that is in rural Hertfordshire where we are assured there are planning permissions sufficient for four years' building.
Nearer my constituency, in the North-East, 15 acres at Darras Hall in Northumberland, went for £265,000. More fantastic still, on the industrial Tyne at Felling, next door to Jarrow, 55 acres of poor grazing land went for £632,000. Like the Minister for the Local Government and Development, my favourite weekend reading is the "Ham and High". I would just like to add a comment to what my right hon. Friend said of the case in which half an acre in Hampstead went for £215,000.
It would be as well to spend a minute on the history of the case. The land was bought by a former hon. Member, Mr. Alan Brown, in 1967 for £37,500. He sold it towards the end of last year for £107,000, making about £70,000 profit. Three months later it was sold again for £215,000. In three months, without doing a thing, the purchasers made a profit of £108,000. That land was sold at the remarkable price of £400,000 an acre. But within weeks of this incident other land in Hampstead was sold for £500,000 an acre. It was wanted by the churches for a youth club, but they were unlucky. They were outbid. After that there was another example in Swiss Cottage where land was sold at the fantastic rate of £700,000 an acre.
In Hampstead Garden Suburb recently two single plots have been sold, one for £28,000, and the other for £29,000, for land alone. One had planning permission for a single house with seven rooms. So, as in the case my right hon. Friend mentioned, this is an example of land


being sold at such a rate that the land-cost per room is over £4,000. Nothing like this has ever happened before, and it demonstrates the fantastic profiteering that has been occurring in land sales. The question is: how has it come about?
We have to go back to the debate that we had on the dissolution of the Land Commission. The Government said that they had stabilised prices and would reduce them. It seemed reasonable enough, because they were abolishing the betterment levy. I remind the House what I said. I said theirs was a policy which would:
bring about the frustration of decent planning, which will set land speculators deliberately to worsen land scarcity, and which will bring back disturbance and anger at the scandal of land prices".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1422.]
Why have I been proved absolutely right and the Government absolutely wrong? It is certainly nothing to do with an increase in the volume of private house building. This certainly cannot explain the dramatic change-round in land prices which occurred in 1970. When a Government spokesman said in February last year that since the abolition of the Land Commission and the betterment levy land prices had been stabilised, this was absolutely contrary to the facts. We have had the figures published by the Government which show a very different state of affairs. The Secretary of State did not even refer to them. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, they showed that in the first half of 1970 land prices had fallen by four points. In the second half of 1970 land prices rose by nine points. That demonstrates that not only were the Government spokesmen inaccurate but the facts were the converse of what they said. Probably one of the explanations of their present difficulties is that the Government do not know what they are doing. The situation is worse than that, because at the time we were given such statements in the House the Government had said, to quote from their own official publication:
In the first half of 1970 the increase in land prices had come to an end.
That is what the Government, not their Front Bench spokesman, officially announced in their own publication. Under the Land Commission, the Government told us, the increase in land prices had come to an end. We know that there has been an unprecedented escalation

since the abolition of the Land Commission and the betterment levy.
At Question Time yesterday the right hon. Gentleman was equally misleading. He must know that in the latter half of 1969 the rise in land prices was already flattening out and, as I have said, in the first half of 1970 prices were actually falling. Moreover, when we talk about land prices we must take the betterment levy into account.

Mr. John Silkin: For the record, it is right to say that the Secretary of State was wrong even on his figures.

Mr. Willey: I cannot recollect any figures in which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be right, and it is incumbent upon me to bring to the notice of the House the correct figures.
When we talk about land prices, we must take into account the betterment levy, and this is pure gain. Taking it into account, we find that there was a decrease in land prices throughout that period. This is particularly important if we consider the Land Commission itself, because it bought net of levy. There was a remarkable decrease in land prices for the land bought by the Land Commission over those years. It was a drastic reduction.
This brings me back to 1970, which is important, because in that year the Land Commission had under contract or consideration the purchase of £100 million-worth of land at drastically reduced prices. That had an effect upon land prices in the first half of 1970.
Now let us take last year, when there is no question about the Government's responsibility. There was an all-time record increase in land prices. We do not yet have the final official figures for 1971, but the right hon. Gentleman concedes that this is so. Meanwhile, however, we have the Estates Gazette figures, and I am sure the Minister will pay respect to them. The figures published in the Estates Gazette are the auction prices for land sold for house building with planning consent. It takes those prices because they are available, and it records them as truly representative of open market values which can be verified. I do not want to overburden the House with figures, and I shall confine myself to London, taking


the average—median—prices, reduced to single plot process so that they are not confused by any question of the density of development. The figures are for 1965–1966, 1969–1970 and 1971, and they admirably serve the purposes of this debate.
For Outer London, the belt 21–40 miles around London, in 1965–66 the figure was £1,525. In 1969–70, it was £2,400. The right hon. Gentleman can say that in spite of the fact that prices were falling in 1970, nevertheless over that five-year period the price per plot rose by £875. Now let us take the 1971 figure. It was not £2,400 but £4,178. In that single year there was an increase of £1,778, twice as much as the increase over the preceding five years.
Let us take Inner London, the area within a radius of 20 miles. The figure for 1965–66 was £1,825. For 1969–70 it was £2,400. In the five years, whatever I may say about 1970, whatever I may say to the Minister about the inaccuracy of his figures because the levy did not apply to three of those five years, and allowing for all that—I must concede that in those five years there was an increase of £575. Now let us take the figure for 1971. It was not £2,400 but £5,416. Thus in a single year it shows an increase of £3,016. Prices have more than doubled in that year; the increase is nearly six times the previous five years. This is fantastic, and it is not surprising that there is a hullabaloo about land prices. They are staggering increases. The figures demonstrate the irresponsibility of the right hon. Gentleman.
What should the right hon. Gentleman have done when he took office in 1970? He should have done two things. First, surprisingly enough, he should have announced that he would raise the betterment levy to 45 per cent. in six months time. It was a very simple device for bringing land on to the market. Even the critics at the time of the publication of the White Paper conceded that there could be no more simple device for bringing land forward. The other thing the right hon. Gentleman should have done was to ask the Land Commission to speed up the acquisition programme for land, which it had then at last begun to carry out.
The problem about housing is that too many builders carry inadequate land stocks. I was very much concerned about this when we set up the Land Commission. We gave a two years' supply of land free of betterment levy. I was concerned about the position that would arise when that supply ran out. Unfortunately, I did not persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have only to look at the Land Commission Report to see the situation. I instructed the Land Commission to build up its stock rapidly, have land available, on Crown hold terms if necessary, to hold the price. If that had been done, we should have been able to hold the prices and we should not have had the exceptional bump which came with the impact of the betterment levy, but which within six months had been contained. The increase was slackening, and already by 1970 there was a fall in prices.
The present escalation is causing hardship to all. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to stop being doctrinaire. When the dust of the debate settles I hope that he will seriously consider the situation and think about house prices first. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a very complex question, affected by such matters as the Housing Finance Bill, but the first thing he must determine is the influences affecting house prices. He must do that, because he must recognise that it is within the limit of the final prospective house price that the landowner and the builder struggle for their share of the profit. It is clear that, with the return of the Government in 1970, what has happened was bound to happen, not as a matter of deliberate policy but arising from the circumstances, in that the landowner was then strengthened against the builder and the struggle between them has led to this escalation of house prices.
I said that I would concentrate on land prices. This is a very special market. It is an artificial market. It is a market in a very infectious climate. That is why I talk about land speculators, people with a vested interest in creating an atmosphere of escalating land prices. I am glad that I am not now alone in this. Mr. Michael Latham, Director of the House Builders' Federation, is also complaining of the land speculation. When the right hon. Gentleman abolished the


betterment levy and gave a £22 million tax-free bonanza, which the speculators are enjoying this year, with £31 million next year, he brought back the speculators in a hurry. They had been beginning to lose interest in the land market. He brought them back by the abolition of the betterment levy and the tax-free hand-out which largely goes to relatively few people.
The right hon. Gentleman admits that it is an artificial market and that he is therefore turning his attention to planning. I do not know where we are on planning. He sounded placatory but we know what the Minister for Local Government and Development has said. It would be regrettable if we had any dilution of planning, because that is no solution. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford that the country owes a great debt of gratitude to his father. When one thinks of the pressures for development, one realises that the country would have been a very different place if we had not held resolutely to planning. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues exercise quasi-judicial functions and we ought to be assured that they will continue to exercise them. But it is regrettable also because it is ineffective. It is a clumsy attempt to overawe the authorities but it will not succeed.
We therefore have to turn to compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase as such is no longer an issue. The Government do not mind any body exercising compulsory purchase as long as it is not a responsible national authority. They would like compulsory purchase to be exercised ruthlessly by local authorities, but the answer is that the local authorities are not properly financed in spite of loan sanctions and the rest, nor are they properly structured. Any developer will tell the Government, as I was told, that a local authority must put its own proper affairs first. If it is looking for land to develop, it must think of its own needs first. Anyway, it is useless to think of this as a solution before we carry out local government reform.
The position at the moment is that we all concede that there is a case without question for compulsory purchase for public authority housing. Some of us complain that it is unfortunate that the local authorities have to buy at market

prices determined by the private sector, but, subject to that, the necessity of compulsory purchase is conceded by everyone. If I made any original contribution with the Land Commission, it was the proposition that, as all building development is controlled by public planning authorities, then if compulsory purchase is valid for public development it is equally valid for private development. That is the argument the Government have to answer if they will not take further steps to make compulsory purchase available for private development.
I look upon housing as a social service. For example, I am concerned generally about development that takes place in Sunderland, and compulsory purchase ought to back that development across the hoard. The simple issue is really one of choice. Do we choose to support the developer and the builder, or the landowner and the speculator? Unfortunately, in the situation which has arisen, the developer is often also the speculator. He holds on to land because it is more profitable to hold on to it in the present market than to develop it. Just as Mr. Hyams holds on to Centre Point, unoccupied land is being held because its price appreciation gives a greater profit than its use.
We have to break this circle. I do not think that it can be left to unwilling, unenthusiastic local authorities. We need a national authority to bring forward development. I do not care whether it is called a land commission, or a land bank, as the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) used to call it, or a national agency, as the Secretary of State for Social Services called it, or whether it is a complex of regional authorities, as is sometimes suggested.
But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that when he is tackling the problem he should very much beware of one very real difficulty, the acute shortage of specialised professional manpower. Subject to that, let him concede that we need such an agency to bring land forward and devise the best way it can be done. In all this, we have to hold fast to the life-line of planning—and this is what disturbed me about what the Minister for Local Government and Development was reported to have said. We do not want to replace planning but strengthen


and reinforce it by having an executive arm to implement it.
The Government, I believe, are doctrinaire about this. The right hon. Gentleman sneers at the public authorities but that does not lie in the mouth of a Government who nationalised Rolls-Royce. Right hon. Gentlemen sneer at lame ducks, but the Government are now dishing out millions of pounds to any lame duck which quacks loudly enough. Let us be realistic about this problem and the distress it is causing to countless married people. Let us have an effective solution. I am sure that it can be done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forget party political prejudice and tackle the job.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Idris Owen: I have listened with interest to the considerable experience of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and I would not quarrel with the fact that he is drawing attention to the very serious escalation of land prices. But it is a question of cause and effect. He concentrated most of his remarks on effect and never got down to the basic cause. It is justifiable to have this debate and to stress the seriousness of the situation, but it ill becomes the Opposition to criticise the Government for the situation when the architects of the 1960s prepared the plans for the 1970s. They left behind them a desperate land shortage. That is not surprising because, when all is said and done, the emphasis of the last Government was predominantly on the provision of council houses. It was not unnatural that this was their principal consideration when allocating land.
The local authorities have never been starved; it was the private sector that was starved. As the emphasis moved from the public to the private sector, it soon became apparent that land was desperately needed. That is why it is now being suggested that we should invite local authorities to disgorge some of their land for home ownership. It is not right to criticise on this basis because up to 1970 the forward planning of land allocation was in the hands of the then Government, today's Opposition. If there is a shortage of land for home building, it must lie at their door.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland said that land was desperately needed. I can only give a cautious welcome to my right hon. Friend's remarks because in the past my hopes and those of my constituents have been dashed by events. However well-intentioned our objectives have been, we never seem to be able to translate those intentions into actions. The proposals are positive. At least we are not relying on polite requests to the authorities or upon blandishments. We are instructing them to review their planning. We are asking them to release, for sound planning objectives, as much land as can be found.
The only problem is that planning authorities have never been renowned for speedy action, and this is causing some grave doubts. However much the Minister may cajole these departments, I do not think that they will move rapidly enough to resolve the immediate problem. I can give an example of this. The regional leader of the housebuilding industry in the North-West was invited as a result of representations by one of my hon. Friends to the offices of the Department of the Environment in the North-West to discuss the subject of land planning. He was encouraged to believe that there was a certain desire to form a working party to investigate the land needs of the region. It could be seen that the Minister had been active in encouraging more positive action. This representative came away from that meeting feeling most encouraged. He was told before he left that the Department. having received the maximum co-operation from the industry, would discuss the subject with the planning authorities. That meeting took place in January, but nothing further has yet been heard. Three months have been wasted.
I am satisfied that the Government are aware of the desperate situation, as are hon. Members opposite. I am not satisfied that the planning authorities are aware of it. Until we are able to convince those who have control of planning that there is a desperate shortage our hopes and aspirations for producing more homes at lower prices will come to nothing. In my constituency since the issue of Circular 10/70 land prices have escalated by 100 per cent. Local authorities were very sluggish and took very little action.
I know that there are acres of land with planning permission, but often they are in places where people do not want to live, and this is the problem. It is always possible for a planning officer to say that planning permission exists for, say, 7,000 units. If they are in areas where there is no demand they may never be built. It is in the stress areas where the demand lies, and unless we are prepared drastically to take action here all our efforts will be fruitless. I do not see the solution lying in compulsory acquisition, because once the local authority or a State organisation introduces compulsory acquisition or a buying agency it has to allocate the land. How will a State corporation or buying agency do this? Only by public tender, which brings us back to square one.
If there is an inadequacy of land, prices will continue to soar irrespective of the selling agency. Why are the speculators involved in hoarding land? Many of the speculators are trust companies. Prudential Assurance is investing in land. Why do they speculate? They speculate in anticipation of the price of land rocketing. It is a good investment. Prices rocket only as the supply dries up. There is not yet an adequate amount of land being released for home building. The sooner we recognise that the sooner we shall make some progress. I urge my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to this matter of pushing hard at the door of the planning authorities, because that is where the solution lies.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I will try to be brief, although it is difficult to condense all that I want to say. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) upon carrying out the tradition of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Since they have been in Government, whether the problem has been one of inflation, land prices or house prices, their policy has been to blame someone else for their sins of commission or omission. I was disappointed in the Minister today because he did not face up to the situation.
I will not give examples of the exorbitant land prices because we have had sufficient. It is recognised that we have had a catastrophic increase in land prices

in 1970 and particularly in 1972. One consequence—and many others are involved—is that we have reached a situation in almost every part of the country when a semi-detached house of about 880 superficial square feet is getting beyond the reach of the man earning in excess of the average wage rates. These are the factors that we must grasp.
Thousands of youngsters each weekend go from estate agent to estate agent trying to buy a house because they either want to get married or have just married. They may have seen an advertisement for a house in the newspaper or in the box outside the estate agent's premises, but when they go into the office they find it is sold.
I did a lot of research on this subject yesterday. It is said on good authority that it is impossible to find a new semidetached house in London for less than £10,000 and that in London and the South-East the average cost of land is £40,000 an acre. In my part of the world, which is by no means a high-price area, for £4,000 one can buy nothing but a slum. I use the figure of £4,000 because it assumes that the purchaser has some money to put down as a deposit. Building societies lend money on the basis that one monthly repayment equals one weekly income, and on a 25–year term the repayments for £4,000 would be £31·25 monthly.
Throughout the length and breadth of Britain there are homeless families. The men may work all the week and earn more than the average weekly wage, yet they cannot afford to buy a house. We are coming to the situation of the 1930s, when a lad who got married lived in two rooms with Mum. I have never known two women who were able to work in the same kitchen, and in human terms this is a factor to be borne in mind.
I shall want to examine carefully what the Minister said, but his proposals at first sight seem to be of advantage only on the periphery. I appreciate that there must be a speeding-up of planning procedures. I have many times written to the Minister for Local Government and Development and to the Secretary of State asking for the speeding-up of procedures for large developments.
The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) spoke about county


council planning authorities. If I may put in a "commercial" here, I wish the Minister would have a chat with Gloucestershire County Council, whose planning department tries to apply urban development principles in a rural area and time and time again for no apparent reason refuses to allow the erection of a house on a piece of land that has been in the possession of family for donkey's years. It is no use suggesting an appeal to the Minister, because people in a working-class area are frightened to death of appealing to the Minister. Even when I see appeals through for them there is great difficulty.
If the Minister's proposals help to improve the situation, I shall be very glad. But with land prices escalating—and they have not yet reached the peak by any means—and people being priced out of the house market we must act quickly. This is an emergency situation.
I have asked the Minister at Question Time about the number of permissions granted, but he has said that this figure is not available. I ask him to find out the number of planning permissions issued over the last five years, how many of those planning permissions are outstanding and where. It is possible to build 10 million houses to no effect; they must be in the areas where they are needed. I think it will be found that a great many planning permissions granted on a first five-year basis are still outstanding. I can understand a rolling programme being required in some circumstances, but the retention of land for which planning permission has been granted for the sole purpose of getting the peak price in the market is intolerable.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): If he will allow me, I will give the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that figure now. Our information is that planning permissions for 150,000 dwellings have been granted and not been taken up.

Mr. Loughlin: That is nearly half the number of dwellings that the Government will produce in any given year; 150,000 dwellings would make an enormous impact.
I will make one or two proposals. As a temporary measure I suggest the freezing of land prices at the price at which the land was purchased; this is ascertainable. This provision could be contained in a Bill which could be retrospective to today, just as the Housing Finance Bill is retrospective to 1st April this year. Compensation could be provided for interest payments on the purchase money.
I suggest a limit on the time in which planning permissions can be taken up. The limit is now five years and it is renewable, but I would bring it down to three years. I suggest a development tax on outstanding planning permissions, progressive for each year the permission is still outstanding. This would cause those people who were holding on to land for the purpose of getting the biggest profit to release it, because I would ensure that that tax would more than compensate for the x percentage increase over the last five years.
I would then encourage local authorities to do what Hillingdon Borough Council has been doing in a scheme which it developed in concern with Wimpeys. Wimpeys have built 77 houses for Hillingdon, which is a London borough, and the local authority is selling them to its residents at £2,500 below the market value. But the speculators cannot get in because if these houses are sold within five years they must be sold back to the council or the council's nominees, and if they are sold after the five years the council will have to be paid the £2,500 differential, which is the amount below market value.
If we want to get councils to do something and if they have banks of land, I would prefer them to build local authority houses, but if we want to build private-enterprise houses this is the way to do it, not by assembling a bank of land and then selling it to the developer, because the developer is only out to get what he can out of it. It will still help the building trade because the building trade can build the houses.
I should like the Government to examine the possibility of three schemes of which they have full knowledge. What I should like them to examine first—and I think this should be examined as a combination scheme—is the excess mortgage guarantee system of 100 per cent.


together with the legal costs for people who cannot afford a deposit, and in particular those youngsters with very good prospects. This would give an opportunity to a fairly large band of people who cannot buy a house simply because they have not got the money for a deposit. In connection with that, I would ask that they examine again the possibility of mortgages under this comprehensive scheme being based upon 45 years and not 25 years as at the present time.
I should like them to examine the possibility of the introduction of the reverse payments system whereby the person pays a small amount at the beginning and gradually increases his payments over five years or so.
What we have to remember in this debate is that our task is not merely to say that the demand for houses is too high. We can say it is too high, we can say it is because the building societies have too much money, we can say that if we have an improved scheme we are merely creating further demand; but our task is to create the conditions in which people can have houses. If we can find the money for so many things it is absolutely incumbent upon any Government to have as one of their first priorities the provision of a home for every citizen in this land, so that he has the opportunity to take care of his wife and his family without being a burden to anyone else and without having to rely on anyone else. I believe that most people want to buy their houses. It is our task to create the conditions in which they can do so.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Trew: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)when he says that we want to create conditions in which more people can buy their homes, but I disagree with his methods. To introduce more controls would defeat his very object. To my mind what we want to do is restore a normal market and bring supply and demand back into equilibrium. At this moment it is no secret that demand greatly exceeds supply, but I believe that this is so for a number of special reasons which are occurring in conjunction at this moment.

In the first place, the housebuilding industry was in a state of prolonged stagnation during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. If that Government had succeeded in maintaining the rate of private housing starts which they inherited in 1964 there would today be 300,000 more houses in private ownership in the United Kingdom and consequently far less pressure on the housing market.
Another factor which has had an effect is the birth rate bulge after the war. In the years 1946 to 1949 about an additional 400,000 children were born who are now aged between 23 and 26. Many of them are now coming into the housing market. And there is another factor, which was referred to recently by two building society chairmen. During the years 1966 to 1970 incomes rose by 57 per cent. During those years house prices rose by 53 per cent. By September last year the rise in house prices had caught up with the rise in incomes. It is perfectly true that at this moment house prices are rising faster than incomes are rising, but one reason for this is that the mortgage interest rate went down at the beginning of this year and this had the effect of increasing the buying capacity of a man on a given income. However, it is a matter of common sense that house prices cannot for long increase faster than incomes increase because if they do many purchasers will go out of the market altogether and demand for houses will decrease.
There are other reasons why I believe that this present unhealthy and frenzied demand will not continue. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) said as much. This housing boom cannot last. There are indications now that building society funds are beginning to become depleted and that must have an effect on reducing demand. But the other thing happening is that more houses are being built. In 1971 housing starts were 42,000 up on 1970 and for the three months ending in February this year the starts was up 32 per cent. on the same period last year. The number of people getting building society mortgages is increasing; it was 654,000 in 1971 compared with only 540,000 the year before. One very important factor is that of the people who got mortgages last year, 31 per cent.


were families on incomes of £30 a week or less.
The remedy for the present problem is a simple one; it is more houses. The measures that my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon are all relevant to that single aim. I have never made any secret of the fact that I thought that the sole merit of the Land Commission was its power to assemble sites for private development. I said as much on the Second Reading debate on the abolition of the Land Commission, but I said then and I say again now that it was not necessary to have a Land Commission for that purpose because local authorities already have these powers. What my right hon. Friend has done this afternoon as I see it is to undertake to give local authorities the money and the moral support to carry out these functions.
The other thing he has done is make it clear to developers that over a period of five to 10 years land will be available, and this will be an important psychological factor in taking demand out of the market.
I end by saying what I have said before—that the solution of this problem is to step up the rate of private housebuilding. The record of the last Conservative Government was outstanding in that respect and the record of this Government will be equally outstanding.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It is not in dispute that house prices and land prices are leaping. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) foresaw an end to the boom. That may or may not be so. But some of the evil social consequences this situation will produce will go on even after such a boom has come to an end.
A young man hoping to get married, set up home and buy a house sees the prospect of being able to afford to do so steadily diminishing. People whose incomes are such that they cannot hope to buy a house—and their number is increasing—must remain as either private or council tenants. They see little prospect of their having better or more spacious accommodation. The only certainty is that before long they will have to pay higher rents.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, people who are well enough off to own several houses have not only a roof over their heads but a valuable investment, the value of which is shooting up, without any effort on their part; and, still more, those with the funds to buy houses and quickly sell them and the expertise to know how to do this are doing very well in a manner which does not add a penny to the total welfare of the community.
The pattern, then, is that if a person is more fortunate in matters of housing and ownership than his average fellow citizen he is given a leg up. If he is less fortunate he is given a kick down. This is frequently the pattern under Conservative Governments. It was the pattern of the Rent Act, 1957, which hit the poor tenant and, incidentally, the poor landlord while enriching the wealthy landlord and making it easier for those already well housed to become even better housed. That is why I say that the social consequences will persist even if—and we cannot be sure of this—the boom is short lived.
I suppose we must accept that at a time when all prices are rising there will be some rises in house prices, but there is no doubt that several measures taken by the Government have aggravated this situation. I mention two. First, when they first took office they set to work to dismantle the Labour Government's regional policy. That would inevitably produce the feeling that, with the regional policy pulled to bits, there would be an increasing number of people seeking employment and homes in London, in the conurbations and in the South-East. This was bound to reflect itself in house prices and land prices.
The Government have learned a little since them, and not long ago we were all cheering the announcement of the reversal of their ill-considered regional policy and a return to something like the Labour Government's. If I understood the Secretary of State correctly today, there appears to have been a similar reversal of policy and the Government must be regretting that they went to so much bother to abolish the Land Commission. However, there is more joy
…in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth …".


The trouble is that the process of first sinning and repenting about 18 months later is very expensive to the public welfare.
The other measure is the Housing Finance Bill which, for a number of private landlords, will add quite substantially to the value of their property. Moreover, it will add to what other people think the value of their property will be and so push the inflationary spiral upwards. If the Government want to help, they can, having stumbled at last on something like the right path in regional policy, pursue that more vigorously and drop the Housing Finance Bill.
I mention three auxiliary measures which the Government might take. First they could give a generous helping hand to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) with his gazumping Bill. My hon. Friend will agree that it is not a major Measure but a valuable auxiliary. Secondly, the Government could encourage local authorities to do what the local authority in my constituency, in the Borough of Hammersmith, proposes to do, namely, compulsory purchase private houses standing empty for more than six months to discourage the practice of people hanging on in the hope of finding somebody who will pay another £500 or £1,000 for the house.
Thirdly, the Government could introduce legislation to the effect that once a person had bought a house he could not sell it for a period, possibly three or four years, unless he gave the local authority first refusal at the valuer's price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I expected that that would worry hon. Members opposite. I shall be told that this will make people think twice before buying a house. It will not make the man who genuinely wants a home and who is prepared to pay a fair price think twice. The person who will think twice is the person who is thinking of buying it not to use as a home but to make a profit out of it. It will remove that kind of person from the market to the advantage of those who want to buy houses for their proper use.
This is where we have our values wrong. There is far too much thinking of houses as primarily instruments for earning profits for their owners and not for their proper use, which is as homes.

The Housing Finance Bill will encourage that wrong way of looking at the purpose of houses.
I should like to say a few words about land prices. It is inevitable in a growing industrial society such as ours that the value of land will rise, not only because people want to be housed more generously, but because the community, if civilised, will want to make more generous provision for schools, hospitals and other projects which consume land. The heart of the matter is: how can we ensure that the increased value of land goes into the public purse and not into private pockets? The community was advised about this more than 40 years ago in a minority Report of the Balfour Commission on Industry and Trade in which it was pointed out that a great deal of land would be needed in coming decades for public purposes and that it would be wise to get to work and acquire it as soon as one reasonably could.
It is right to do this to make sure that the increased value of land, which is the community's creation and not a private individual creation, goes into the public purse, for two reasons. First, the well-known fact of people making enormous sums of money for which they have done nothing whatever is a public scandal, and we cannot go on telling people who earn their livings to exercise restraint in their wage claims if they see this kind of thing reported in the newspapers day after day.
Secondly, like all modern States, we live in a society in which we need more and more public revenue. The problem—and it is increasing—is how we are to provide services at the level which a civilised society wants and expects without making the burden of rates and taxes too great. Part of the answer is to increase the public domain, the sources of revenue to the nation from sources other than rates and taxes. If we had set to work a generation ago to bring land into public ownership, many of our problems of public finance would be much easier. But it is never too late to begin, because the value of land will go on rising.
I take the view that, apart from such land as is needed for owner-occupation, the more land there is owned by a public authority, whether national or local, the better. That will make it easier to


finance public services properly, it will remove the public scandal in the distribution of wealth and it will move our general social policy away from the divisive policy I described at the beginning of my remarks and in the direction of social justice.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I wish to make a brief contribution to put three proposals which I hope my hon. Friend will see as a positive and constructive contribution in seeking to alleviate the problem of rising land and house prices—a problem that is recognised by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
On the need for speeding up planning procedures, I am relieved that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does not propose radically to alter the structure of planning procedures. Would he pay attention to giving better guidelines to local planning authorities about the sort of densities he would like to see when local planning authorities consider planning applications?
I know that my hon. Friend Government and Development is concerned about taking away planning matters from local planning authorities, but he is the final arbiter of planning decisions and much more definition could be given to permissible densities.
I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton shire, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) about schemes being held up. I know from professional experience that some schemes are being held up when there is no need for it.
I would emphasise the need for an acre-by-acre survey of land for building, often called the Domesday Book. I am thinking of this in terms of the countryside in particular. We all want to preserve the green belt policy and this is in the interests of people who live in towns and cities as much as in the interests of those fortunate enough to live in the countryside. I am speaking of the countryside as a whole not just about the green belt areas.
Some villages are dying socially because no planning permissions are being allowed. This means that the young families in those villages have to move

to towns, and rich business men are buying derelict cottages for fantastic amounts. This is a bad thing. If all villages were beautiful, then such a tight planning policy would be understandable. But all villages are not beautiful. Therefore, I believe that we should make an acre-by-acre survey in these areas. Looking at the matter in a quite amateur way, I believe that we could obtain an additional 500,000 building plots in our countryside without in any way violating the principle of the green belt policy. I hope that my hon. Friend will give serious consideration to this aspect of the matter.
I should like to refer briefly to the introduction of time limits on planning permissions. The Labour Government in Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968—now consolidated into Section 41 of the 1971 Act—first introduced the idea of time limits or expiries on planning applications. In short, any development must begin within five years of the granting of planning permission. If there is a problem involving the hoarding of land by builders, speculators and developers—I believe that a certain amount of hoarding does take place, but that this has been exaggerated—I would suggest that we should reduce the expiry from five years to three years as a first resort in trying to deal with the problem. It might be said that if they do not build within the required period nothing can be done about the situation since if this led to withdrawal of planning permission the land would not be developed. However, as a last resort planning authorities could use powers of compulsory purchase if they think that owners or developers have not made out a good case for delaying a building project or developing the land.
Finally the problem we face today of rising land prices is in part due to the revival of private housebuilding and building for home ownership after a stifing period at the end of the 1960s. In this respect, and in conclusion, may I say that I welcome the Government's initiative as outlined in the measures mentioned by my right hon. Friend today.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We listened with amazement to the Secretary of State's decision to grant an extra £80 million as a land bank. With land prices increasing as


they are, this will cover only 2,000 acres at £40,000 per acre, which will contribute very little to solving the overall problem.
The real problem in terms of land lies in the failure of the Government's general policy to attract investment to industry and to keep down unemployment. If we did not face so much inflation, industrial stagnation and high unemployment, there would not be so much money spent in chasing every piece of land that becomes available.
The Housing Finance Bill will cause a great deal of trouble, and indeed is causing trouble now. During the brief period of office of a Tory council in my area, council rents rose massively and estate agents said that it was the pressure of those rents increasing which in turn forced up the prices of houses in Hull generally. This even led to abuses in terms of the renting of substandard property which was waiting to be cleared. The provisions of the Bill will force up the rents of private properties. This, in turn, will increase capital values of properties and people will seek to sell. An abominable situation will be created by the Bill.
I turn finally to gazumping. It is true to say that this is not a major issue and that neither my own Bill nor any other Measure will solve the problem of rising prices, but the Government have a duty to do something to alleviate the misery of thousands of people. Not only young married couples are affected by the problem, but middle-aged couples—particularly people who have saved to buy a retirement bungalow. This is what happens when a speculator, who has already paid his building material costs and knows that his labour costs are covered, hangs on to a property for two or three months to make a much higher profit on the deal. The Government have a duty to deal with this situation, the proportions of which are thrown up daily in Members' mail bags and are constantly emphasised on television and in the Press.
Last November the Government were exhorted by The Times to introduce some new measure to deal with the situation—as we did when we came into office in 1964 by introducing our temporary Rent Act to deal with Rachmanism, while we were looking at the long-term procedure. A measure of that kind would be of massive assistance to hundreds of people and at the same

time would help to curb wage inflation and all the other kindred abuses. The cost of housing a family takes up so much of a household's budget that any increase leads to the sort of demands which we have seen, for example, from the railway workers. This leads to strikes and creates a situation which can lead only to divisiveness. This situation must be dealt with.

6.49 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): It has been recognised throughout the debate by all who have spoken that our present difficulties arise out of the substantial increase in the demand for owner occupation. One example to illustrate this situation lies in the fact that in 1969 loans by building societies amounted to 460,000, whereas this year and last year they numbered 650,000. This is a good thermometer of demand.
I doubt whether anybody would advocate any direct or deliberate damping down of the demand. At the end of 1969 and the beginning of 1970 the demand was damped down as was the rise in prices, but this had little to do with the Land Commission at that time. It flowed from the general policy of the Labour Government in that money for house purchase was not available in the banks and building societies. In the last few months we have been partially meeting the demand for homes by increasing the supply. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave figures of housing starts for the first quarter of this year as compared with the same period last year. There is an increase of 26 per cent. on the starts of last year, and that is a very substantial figure.
We must go further to meet the demand by increasing the supply within sound planning policy. I do not think that any hon. Member has asked us to adopt any panic policy, except perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who said that we should pass some emergency legislation. There have been one or two other solutions from the back benches opposite to restore and even to raise betterment levy. We were urged to take direct control of the price of land. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) wanted to give local


authorities an option over all houses, and then he suggested that we should put land into public ownership.
All these suggestions would only be restrictive of the supply, and it is an increase in the supply that we must seek. The only solution offered by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was the exhumation of the cold and rigid body of the Land Commission—

Mr. John Silkin: The Minister never fully attends to anything that I say. It is a great tragedy. I said that the best way of solving the problem was to get rid of this Government and that the other way was to get rid of the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Page: Very well. But those are the negatives. His positive solution was to return to the Land Commission. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman says that I do not pay attention to what he says. I sit at his knee in Committee and listen patiently and pay great attention to what he says. However, there was nothing in his speech today to help the situation.
We had one or two substantial suggestions from the back benches on both sides of the House. One constructive speech came from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who suggested a number of planning permissions. Local authorities can do that already. What is set out in the Act as five years can be altered by planning authorities. The hon. Gentleman suggested a tax on the holding of planning permissions. I could not agree with that. Then he said that local authorities should be encouraged to sell under market value. That is already being done by local authorities like Newham. It is being considered by other London boroughs. It is also being done by Luton. The hon. Gentleman suggested 100 per cent. mortgages over 45 years and an increasing instalment system. However, this would not be relevant to our immediate problem because it would increase demand. But it is a matter which ought to be considered fully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) put forward similar suggestions, including a time limit on planning

permissions, better guidelines on densities, which I will look into, and an acre-by-acre survey of land for building, which is an item which comes into the points set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Piecemeal planning permissions are not a good enough solution to our present problem. Piecemeal development will not give us the right solution. Only planned development on a substantial scale will meet the present difficulty. Land authorities are capable of doing this. They have the powers. If we remove some of the financial restrictions upon local authorities, I think that they can carry out the job well. That is the point of the £80 million worth of loan sanctions that we are prepared to give for land acquisition by local authorities for the proper development of land.
Some hon. Members thought that we were discussing grants. We are not. We are merely permitting the local authority to borrow that amount of money so that they can carry out comprehensive planning and the comprehensive servicing of land. So many times one asks a local authority why there is no planning permission for a piece of land or, if planning permission has been granted, why the land is not being developed. The answer always is that it is not serviced, that there are no sewers and roads, and the local authority is not prepared to devote sufficient of its borrowing capacity to the development. We wish to help in that by allowing the borrowing of that money. Many local authorities are already very successful at this. I hope that we shall be building success upon success, not to overawe local authorities as someone put it, but to assist them in this type of comprehensive development.
It will also assist them if they are permitted during the period of development to capitalise the interest for five years until the investment in the servicing of the land returns to them in rate able values. This has been the difficulty that local authorities have found in laying out the money and having to pay the interest. Capitalising the interest will assist them. The granting of loan sanctions for sewerage works in connection with land assembly schemes and making those grants in advance of needs is another way in which we can help.
It follows that we wish these procedures to be open government and that local authorities shall publish detailed information of the location and state of readiness of land on which development could take place within a short period, we have said within the next five years. To assist in identifying this land we are at present carrying on regional discussions with local authorities, developers and land owners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) said that he did not think local authorities could move rapidly enough in this. This is the way in which we hope to speed up their planning functions. We shall have discussions with them to find out what is holding up development in any area. As has been announced today, we already have the working parties on partnerships between local authorities, developers and landowners. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are examining the possibility of residential development in the centre of towns. This is a vital part of the policy. We have neglected the centres of towns for residential development too long. If the Government can assist in this we shall endeavour to do so.
Those are points which the local authorities can do for themselves. What the Government can also do is release a large amount of land in the new towns for further development. My right hon. Friend referred to the figure of an extra 5,000 acres for the new towns much of which could be released immediately and developed.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Can my hon. Friend say how many homes that will represent either in the new towns as a whole or, more particularly, in my own new town of Harlow? This news is most welcome. We have been waiting for years for other Governments to get on with it.

Mr. Page: There are 1,000 acres in Harlow. It is difficult to say how many houses that means. It depends upon the density in each area. I would not attempt to lay down even an average density over the whole 5,000 acres. It is for the new towns themselves to decide what densities to apply.
I was about to mention the action that we are taking with other Departments and the nationalised industries to discover surplus land. Measures to speed up planning work in my own Department are in hand. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) that the planning procedures are tardy in many cases.
An abandonment of the old development plan procedure and rapid progress with the new planning procedures of structure and local plans will help to speed planning control. If we work on firm, up-to-date modern development plans, planning control can be speeded up.
That leads me to the action which both central and local government can take together. We shall take special steps to join local authorities in bringing forward land for development in growth areas indicated in the regional strategies.
The right hon. Member for Fulham said that we had abandoned regional policies. Indeed, on the planning of land, we have built up those regional policies between the economic planning councils and the Standing Conference of Local Authorities. We hope to go forward with these regional planning strategies as a basis for positive planning. Behind our whole policy lies a positive form of planning. I believe that we have now put forward a thoroughly practical, not a panic, policy, which will achieve the ends which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House desire.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that this was to be a United Kingdom debate. The Scottish Ministers concerned have been so interested that not one of them has attended throughout the debate, apart from the Secretary of State for Scotland who was present for a few minutes in the course of the opening speech. I have been present throughout the debate. I have been the only Scottish Member on this side who has sought to intervene in the debate. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that a Scottish policy would be announced in a Written Answer to a planted Question in HANSARD tomorrow. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is simply not good enough to have a United


Kingdom debate in which the Scottish voice is not heard from either the Front or the back benches.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have not been able to call more hon. Members. It is not my fault.

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. William Hamilton rose—

Mr. Walter Harrison: Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 302.

Division No. 158.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Kaufman, Gerald


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard


Allaun, Frank Salford, E.)
Edelman, Maurice
Kerr, Russell


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kinnock, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lambie, David


Ashley, Jack
Ellis, Tom
Lamond, James


Ashton, Joe
English, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Fred
Lawson, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ewing, Henry
Leadbltter, Ted


Barnes, Michael
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Leonard Dick


Barnett, Joel (Heywood andRoyton)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Baxter, William
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lipton Marcus


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McElhone, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Garrett, W. E.



Brown, Ronald (Shoredltch &amp; F'bury)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackintosh, John P.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Campbell, l. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marquand, David


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Horam, John
Millan, Bruce


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Milne, Edward


Crosland, Rl. Hn. Anthony
Huckfield, Leslie
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Crossman, Rt. Kn. Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Molloy, William


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davidson, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oakes, Gordon


Deaklns, Eric
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric


de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Delargy, H. J.
John, Brynmor
OMalley, Brian


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Cram, Bert


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dolg, Peter
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Padley, Walter


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Paget, R. T.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dunn, James A.
Judd, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles




Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Eric G.


Pendry, Tom
Sillars, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Perry, Ernest G.
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Small, William
Wallace, George


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Watkins, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Rankin, John
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefleld)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitehead, Philip


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitlock, William


Richard, Ivor
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roper, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kllmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rowlands, Edward
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Woof, Robert


Sandelson, Neville
Tinn, James



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. James Hamilton.


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Alison, Michael (Barkslon Ash)
Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Crowder, F. P.
Haselhurst, Alan


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hastings, Stephen


Astor, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Havers, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.MaJ.-Gen. James
Hawkins, Paul


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Hay, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedee, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hayhoe, Barney


Balniel, Lord
Dlgby, Simon Wingfield
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Heseltine, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hicks, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosporl)
Dykes, Hugh
Holland, Philip


Benyon, W.
Eden, Sir john
Holt, Miss Mary


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Peter


Bitten, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Blaker, Peter
Emery Peter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Boscawen, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Fidler, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bossom, Sir Clive
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Iremonger, T. L.
Irvine,


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Bryant Godman (Rye)


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkln, Patrick (Woodford)


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Foster, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fowler,Norman
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stllord a Stone)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bryan, Paul
Fry, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Galbralth, Hn. T. G.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gibson-Watt, David
Kllfedder, James


Burden, F. A.
Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kimball, Marcus


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gllmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhart, Philip
Kinsey, J. R.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Kirk, Peter


Channon, Paul
Gorst, John
Kitson, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, Alan
Lambton, Antony


Churchill, W. S.
Grieve, Percy
Lane, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grylls, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, Selwyn
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Coombs, Derek
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dflelu,


Cooper, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Ian (P'lsm'th, Langstone)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Longden, Gilbert


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Loverldge, John







Luce, R. N.
Parkinson, Cecil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peel, John
Stokes, John


MacArthur, Ian
Percival, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


McCrlndle, R. A.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sutcliffe, John


McLaren, Martin
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McMaster, Stanley
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tebblt, Norman


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Temple, John M.


Madel, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thomas, John Stradllng (Monmouth)


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tilney, John


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trew, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Waddington, David


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Money, Ernie
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Monro, Hector
Rost, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Montgomery Fergus
Royle, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


More, Jasper
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Warren, Kenneth



Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.



Morrison, Charles
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Jonn (Maidstone)


Mudd, David
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Murton Oscar

Roger (Gravesend)



Sharpies, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Simeons, Charles
Wolriae-Gordon Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck &amp; L'mington)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nott, John
Soref, Harold
Woodnutt, Mark


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith
Worsley, Marcus



Spence, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sproat, lain
Younger, Hn. George


Osborn, John
Stainton, Keith



Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Question accordingly negatived.

TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

7.15 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: Tradition has it that the subject of aid is normally a friendly one. Our relationship with the third world is usually regarded by the House as being controversial to the least degree—in fact, entirely uncontroversial, completely gentle and soft. Party political battle is able to rage to the right and left, but on aid and development there is a bilateral agreement. We tend to agree with each other and to express our mutual concern about the third world.
But, although the good will continues, and will continue where it is merited—and from our side of the House we shall con-

tinue to give praise where it is due; for example, on the question of Bangladesh and the help which the Government have given and which we have supported—in the debate today we cannot be either gentle or uncontroversial. Nor, I fear, can we even be particularly friendly, because we bitterly regret and condemn what we regard as the failure of the Government to respond to the challenge that is presented by the agenda of the third meeting of UNCTAD.
I suppose we ought to indicate why we regard the third meeting of UNCTAD as so important. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meets only every four years. It met for the first time in 1964, and at that time the developing countries, somewhat tentatively, were working towards a coherent, joint policy to protect their own interests. They met in Algiers, and the Charter of Algiers represented the point of view which they put at UNCTAD in 1964. But it was not highly


organised. It was not a totally logical and thought-out position from the point of view of the developing countries, and we had to wait until 1968 for the UNCTAD meeting at New Delhi for a much more coherent and stronger case to be presented on their behalf.
We have had to wait until UNCTAD III, in Santiago in Chile, for a coherent and sharp presentation of the demands of the third world from the rich world, and it is the agenda, which is the result of what is, in effect, a real confrontation between the rich and the poor worlds, to which we are devoting our attention today.
We are debating this at a time when the plenary session is to all intents and purposes over, when the positions of Governments have been stated, and when the conference has gone into committee and is thrashing out some of the points that have emerged from the plenary discussions, so we are in a position to form our judgments. That is a little difficult because, although we received excellent Press reports from The Times, the Financial Times and The Guardian, we have to search for a number of original documents, read the speeches, and consider the precise proposals that have been made by a number of developed and developing countries. It is not easy to get adequate documentation to present in a debate of this kind. I hope I shall be able to find my way through the various bits of original sources that I have with me.
We hope, while regretting very much the inadequacy of the Government's attitude so far, that this debate, which is taking place in Opposition time because of the importance that we attach to the subject, may yet result in our affecting what the Government do in the remaining weeks of UNCTAD.
There is perhaps one month ahead. Part of it will be committee consideration and part, at the end, will be resumed plenary session at which Governments are asked to state their final positions on what has emerged from the committees. There is time to reconsider. There is time to make a constructive response.
Our concern and what I can only express as our anger is shared by many people in Britain who follow these matters. They are only a minority, but

they are an important and substantial one. They are caring people, and those who follow these matters and devote themselves to the cause of the third world share our concern and anger at the total inadequacy of the Government's response to UNCTAD III. It is because of that that, for the first time in the history of aid and development debates in this House, we shall divide at the end of the evening.
It has been said by many people that UNCTAD this year can make or break relationships between the rich and the poor world. It is difficult to judge just how true this may be. I have a strong feeling that it could be true.
I was in Peru just before the Committee of 77 meeting at Lima, its pre-UNCTAD meeting, in the autumn of last year. I was in the Netherlands in January at a conference concerned with UNCTAD at which were present a number of key officials of UNCTAD and representatives of the developing countries.
It is clear that if there is indeed a make or break confrontation this time it is because the Committee of 77, representing the developing world, has presented well organised, entirely logical and well presented proposals and requests, and these constitute the agenda.
It could be that if real progress is not made in Santiago the third world will turn its back on any concept of partnership in development and will turn in on itself and seek its own answers independent of the rich world. I do not know whether that is what the Government want. It might be an easy answer. It would be easy for any rich country to say Let the third world solve its own problems. We shall have no more to do with it".
I do not really believe that this is what Her Majesty's Government are seeking. If I am right, they are making a grave mistake in their lack of response to the entirely constructive proposals that are being made in Santiago.
I deal with these proposals against the background that we must clearly have in mind. It is a background in which we know that during the 'sixties, the first Development Decade, the poverty gap widened. We must consider why, for unless we can discover the reasons we cannot establish the answers or be clear about the importance of the response to


the proposals that the third world is making in Santiago.
Part of the background is aid and part is trade. Probably the most important aspect is trade. Between 1960 and 1969 exports from developing countries grew at the rate of 6·9 per cent. Exports from the rich countries grew at the rate of 9·5 per cent. If we look in the same period at the primary commodities on which many of the developing countries, and particularly the poorest, depend completely—if we exclude oil, which benefits only a tiny number of highly privileged countries—we find that the export of primary commodities grew at the rate of only 2·5 per cent.
That state of affairs might have been satisfactory if prices had compensated for the lack of growth in the export trade, but they did not. During the 'sixties—it is difficult to generalise; one really needs all the elaborate figures of a Financial Times index—if we take beef, cocoa, coffee, cotton, iron ore, rubber, tea and copper—these represent most of the main primary commodities of the developing world—we find that prices at the end of the 'sixties were lower than they had been in earlier years, either during the 'fifties or during the earlier part of the 'sixties.
For a concrete example, consider copper. It is only two or three years ago since the price of copper was 78c per lb. on the London Metal Exchange. This year it has averaged between 48c and 50c. This selective fact indicates the importance of the price of primary commodities to a developing country. In Chile, where UNCTAD is taking place, a difference of lc per lb. on copper on the London Metal Exchange means 15 million dollars a year to the foreign exchange of Chile. That is a measure of the importance of the price of primary commodities.
We have a picture in which the development of world trade and the movement of prices for 10 years and more has favoured the rich countries. This has happened partly because trade barriers have not been relaxed enough.
The Minister has expressed the view to the House that the generalised preference scheme which Britain has adopted is much more generous than the one we

are about to adopt under the EEC. We have made a move, as have most of the developed countries, on generalised preferences, but we have not gone far enough. If the developed countries had gone further, the picture of a declining share of world trade by the third world would have been a picture of an increased share for them.
I was privileged to observe the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on television last night in a party political broadcast. He totally failed to comprehend the nature of the problem. It is not enough to say that the rich countries are doing something by way of generalised preferences to help the poor countries. It is certainly not enough to say that the European Community, to which he is so devoted, is doing good things to help the developing countries. The question is whether those good things are good enough; whether, in fact, the trade barriers which still persist should be broken down.
Then there is the persistence of the rich world in developing substitutes for primary commodities, be they synthetic rubber or synthetic textiles, all of which embody a great technological revolution in Europe and America and reduce the capacity of the third world to sell its natural products. This great problem is being discussed in Santiago. It is one of the background reasons for the decline in the share of trade that has gone to the third world.
Associated with that is the leap forward in self-sufficiency of the rich countries. Does it make sense for European countries to seek to increase their production of beet sugar? I leave aside all the complicated arguments concerning the Sugar Agreement and the producing countries. Does it make sense for the rich countries to make more of the commodities upon which the third world relies for its livelihood?

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am following the theme that the right hon. Lady is advancing. Europe seeks to exploit as much oil as possible now, because the price which the Middle East and Libya are charging is regarded as exorbitant. Therefore, Europe must have an alternative source of supply in addition to the supplies available from reserves in the Middle East.

Mrs. Hart: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, I specifically excluded oil from my consideration of primary commodities. Oil and oil exports benefit only a tiny number of developing countries. Unfortunately, they are those countries whose rulers seem to be less willing to share the benefits of oil exports among their peoples. I do not include oil in this consideration. I am talking about commodities like sugar beet.
These are some of the reasons why the trade gap has increased. The poverty gap is more than just the trade gap. We must take into the balance sheet the fact that during the 1960s—I make no pretence that the Labour Government had any tremendous record in this regard—aid from the rich world was no more than peanuts and it shows no sign of being other than peanuts during the 1970s.
Taking it as a whole, the United States contributes, or has contributed, almost half of the official development assistance flow from the rich world to the poor world. Recent developments in Congress and the recent attitude of the Nixon Government to aid mean that part of the aid programme from the rich world as a whole is likely to be greatly diminished. There is no sign that other countries are likely to make up the gap that is thus created.
Another factor in the balance sheet is that debt piled up in the third world, basically because the rich were looking after themselves.
It may well be that this UNCTAD is the last chance to take a new path. I therefore wish to consider what the Government's position seems to be at UNCTAD and what it has been stated to be. I consider first the actual representation at UNCTAD. It will be remembered that in 1964, on the occasion of the first meeting of UNCTAD, Britain was represented by the then President of the Board of Trade, the present Prime Minister. He spent a long time there. He claims to have continued his concern for the third world since then. In 1968 my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade was in New Delhi for, I think, the whole of the plenary session.
This year the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) departed for Chile, attended on the opening day and the day thereafter, then no doubt had a pleasant Saturday and Sunday in the countryside around Santiago, departed for home on Monday, and was back in a House of Commons Committee on Tuesday, a fact which was completely deplored by the Opposition members of the Committee that he attended.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The right hon. Lady might have asked and not stated it; because then she would have found out the facts. I was there on Saturday morning, which was the total time available on Saturday. I had an hour off after lunch before catching my plane home.

Mrs. Hart: Splendid—two days and one hour! I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Noble: Two and a half days.

Mrs. Hart: Now we really know. I am anxious to do absolute justice to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. I apologise deeply if I have offended the right hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he attended UNCTAD for two days when in fact he attended for two and a half days.
We heard only during the course of the debate in another place a week yesterday that the noble Lady the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is to go to Santiago, I believe for a week. Precisely what is the noble Lady to do in Santiago? I have a tremendous respect for the Minister of State, whom I know well. We know that she will add a great deal of grace and charm to Santiago. However, UNCTAD will be in committee. Is she to attend and take part in committees? If so, which ones? Is she taking with her any fresh proposals other than the non-proposals that the right hon. Gentleman advanced during his two and a half days in Santiago?
The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the reaction is not just that of hon. Members on this side. I quote The Times of 17th April:
The initiatives and activities of Germany and France have completely overshadowed the extremely cautious opening positions adopted by Britain and the United States


…Britain got off to a poor start, giving the impression at this international forum that it does not have confidence enough to back any new initiatives; even that it fears any new ideas as disadvantageous if they emerged since the United Nations debates two years ago on the second development decade.
After getting a reaction like that, it is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman beat a retreat to the safe shores of Argyll.
What are the policies that we would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have put forward? What are the policies that we regret that the Government have not put forward? Looking first at trade, the need is for progress to be made on commodity agreements. One of the outstanding matters is cocoa, about which I know the right hon. Gentleman has had something, but not enough, to say. There is a need for import price schemes, for consumer support for development, for research into new uses, and for new markets for raw materials.
I turn to what has been said in contrast to each other by two people at Santiago. The French representative, M. D'Estaing, talking about the international cocoa agreement, which is one of these commodity agreements which are crucial at the moment for all third world countries which are producers of cocoa, and on which progress is being very steady, said this:
To the French Government, this agreement on cocoa has the value of a test. We must not leave this Conference without having committed ourselves to succeed. France confirms here her decision to participate in the free financing of the regulator stock, even if other consumer countries were to refuse to contribute to it.
That is a very strong and constructive statement.
I turn now to what the right hon. Gentleman said:
Experience has shown just how complex and varied commodity problems are—and how many other often very different interests have to be reconciled. If we are realists we cannot ignore these difficulties. Where individual products are concerned we believe cocoa is one area were action very evidently is required, and we have been doing what we can to find solutions to outstanding issues in the current negotiations.
Has the right hon. Gentleman made any commitment? If not, does he intend to make the kind of commitment that the French have made about the international

cocoa agreement? This is the kind of specific step that we seek from the right hon. Gentleman.
Then there is the question of buffer stocks on which the Group of 77—the developing countries—are calling for positive initiatives. We on this side believe that buffer stocks are one of the valuable contributions which can be made to safeguard the commodity position and the pricing position of commodities for developing countries. We believe that buffer stocks would be a legitimate matter for contributions from the aid budget, if need be, so that safeguards could be given. Has the right hon. Gentleman had anything to say about buffer stocks? I think not.
What we are considering in this debate is the difference between words, vague good intentions, and hard concrete action, hard concrete commitments on specific policies. UNCTAD in Santiago is seeking a commitment on policies, and all that the Government have done is to quote vague words of understanding.
On the question of manufactured goods I quote Dr. Mansholt speaking for the European Commission. He invited UNCTAD to make a clear call to the industrialised nations to open their markets to permit a 15 per cent. annual increase in the export of manufactured goods by the developing countries. Has the Minister for Trade said anything like that? Of course not. We recognise the problems here. We recognise that internal economic adjustments are needed and that these can only be made on the basis of full employment. The Government do not have a chance of meeting the needs of the third world because they start from the position of having over a million unemployed. But nothing constructive comes from the Government.
I turn to finance, which is just as important. Here there are two key requests coming from the third world. The first is that there should be a participation by the third world in international decision-making on monetary matters. To be fair to the Minister, he has had one or two things to say about this. He said that participation might be possible. But he has not supported any of the concrete proposals. He has not given any real response to the third world demand. In all the monetary difficulties of the world as a whole in the last year or two, the


last people to be considered have been the developing countries. The Group of Ten has met and tried to work out solutions. It has to some extent found solutions for its own problems, but it has given scarcely any thought, and certainly taken no action to seek to protect the third world from the consequences of actions by countries in the rich world. All that the third world is asking is to be involved in some of these discussions, to take part and have a voice to protect its interests. On this the Government's response is totally inadequate.
The other aspect of the financial problems is the question of special drawing rights. This reflects the demand of the third world for special drawing rights to be made by them upon the IMF in a much greater proportion than they do at the moment. This is a reflection of their critical and acute foreign exchange difficulties. It does not affect them all. Ceylon, Chile and India are just three which have acute external influences on their growth because of their foreign exchange problems. We in this country should know how far a balance of payments problem can restrict growth. We should be the first to sympathise and want to take positive action, realising as we do the relationship between foreign exchange problems and the rate of growth. But we seem to be the last.
In The Times of 24th April this year there appeared the headline:
Demand by poor nations opposed by Britain".
The story said that Britain refused to support the scheme. It said:
The proposal, known as the Link, would provide poor countries with more finance for their development by means of special drawing rights on the international Monetary Fund".
In contrast we have Dr. Mansholt, again speaking for the European Commission. He has been quoted as saying:
My Commission believes that at the next allocation of Drawing Rights a special allocation for developing countries could be envisaged to compensate the losses in the purchasing power of their reserves resulting from the last monetary crisis
The French support it, and from Germany Dr. Schiller said he favoured a greater share for the third world but with a smaller proportion of special drawing rights for industrialised countries to compensate. This is obviously a very elabor-

ate area for discussion, but what matters is that the British Government have given no indication that they are even prepared to take any initiatives at the IMF to have the matter fully discussed and to provide an approach which could offer something constructive for the developing world.
I turn finally to aid and to debt relief. I do not want to elaborate on aid because we have exchanged views on this on a number of occasions. The Government refuse to accept any target for official aid as we believe they should and as we did in May, 1970. The Government rely on private investment to meet the overall international 1 per cent. target. We believe that private investment is not aid. I was astonished to see that the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords said a week ago that she agreed that private investment was not aid. I wonder whether she had consulted her right hon. Friends, because this is not what we have been hearing from the Government. They have been saying that it does not matter about industrial development assistance not reaching specific targets. They say that what matters is that total aid flows, including private investment, should reach 1 per cent.
We regret and condemn the Government's attitude. It is not difficult to understand. It flows from the Conservative manifesto of June, 1970, and from the dogma of the Conservative Party. We regret that out of that dogma has come a conviction on the part of the Government that private investment can make a contribution to the developing world and that official development assistance is less important. This is the implication of their refusal to accept an official development assistance target. They are now one of a very tiny minority of rich countries which fail to accept it.
The Government have agreed that emphasis should be given to the least-developed countries, the poorest. It is not surprising, because they are carrying out the decisions of the last Labour Government aid framework of 1970 which provided for a considerable proportionate increase in the aid to go to the poor Commonwealth countries, most of which are within the category of least developed nations.
There is a total failure on debt relief. By the end of 1969 80 developing countries had accumulated nearly $60 billion of external public debt. It grew at the rate of 14 per cent. between the mid-1950s and 1969, and so did debt service payments. It grew because the rates of interest charged on early development loans were far too high and it has caught them up. Ceylon, India, Ghana, Chile, Pakistan—there is a long list of countries which are in acute difficulties because what they are due to pay back to the rich countries in loans is as much as, and even more than, the amount they are receiving in aid.
What should be done? The proposals of the Committee of 77 at UNCTAD are that the criteria and procedures of rescheduling external debt should be reviewed. The response from the Minister was that none of us could fail to be conscious of the considerable and growing indebtedness of developing countries. He said that the British Government were prepared to join in seeking constructive solutions to these problems. But what are the Government prepared to do about waiving debt repayment and debt interest? The Spectator thinks that the Government should abandon all claim to debt repayment. It is interesting to see that on the question of aid and development there can be the bitter divisions between the Spectator and the Government that we have seen on a number of other issues.
I have spoken at length because no one from this Front Bench proposes to intervene again. To sum up, we believe that British representation at UNCTAD has been inadequate to the point of being offensively inadequate. There has been no satisfactory indication of a constructive British approach either on the major agenda items of aid targets, debt relief, the link with SDRs, the creation of buffer stocks, the need for real progress on commodity agreements or on the need for internal adjustments to help imports of manufacturers. On all of this nothing constructive has emerged from the British Government. There is no sense of concern such as has emerged from Germany, France, Sweden and many other countries. It will be no use the right hon. Gentleman telling us of the Government's concern and compassion for the third world. It will be no good his telling us of vague good intentions, because rich countries at

the time of the Santiago meeting will be judged by what they do and by their total commitment. On that test I am sorry to say that the Government have completely failed, and it is for that reason that we shall later divide the House.

7.51 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I am delighted that the House has an opportunity for a general debate on the Third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. I am also glad, though I suspect that the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) is not, that I am here and able to take part. The right hon. Lady would no doubt have wished me to spend the whole of the conference in Santiago, and it would have been very pleasant.
When the subject of the conference was raised on the Adjournment two weeks ago by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) I was already in Santiago for the opening of the conference. During that debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State outlined to the House the Government's attitude to a number of main issues which will be covered by the conference. I shall go into a few of these in a little more detail. Before coming into policies, however, I thought that the House might wish to hear something of the atmosphere of the conference itself. The right hon. Lady's picture of it is very far from the truth, as far as I could see it or as has been reported to us since.
Perhaps the most striking thing about Santiago is the sheer size and scope of the conference. With representatives of 141 countries taking part and the whole range of financial, trading and development problems of the developing world within its ambit, it is an enormous undertaking. It is greatly to the credit of the Chilean Government that they have constructed halls and offices which are fully in keeping with the scale of the conference. The conference secretariat, too, should be commended for the documentation and organisation with which the efforts of so many experts from Governments and from outside bodies have been harnessed to give the conference the best possible start for its work.
But in any meeting of this size with heads of State, Ministers, and other distinguished visitors from almost the entire


world, the formal sessions of the conference are only a small part of the interchange of ideas, which takes place; other less formal contacts take place continuously.
My stay in Santiago had unfortunately to be limited. I agree with the right hon. Lady that if I could have stayed there several more days it would have been both useful and pleasant for me, but this could not happen on this occasion, and she knows why. But I was able to take the opportunity in the three days I was there of having many discussions both with a number of our Commonwealth partners and with our new EEC partners.
The right hon. Lady referred to some criticisms at home of the tone of my opening speech to the conference. I make no apologies for this. A large number of heads of delegations who spoke to me, and many of the experts from the United Nations and so on, said that my speech in their view was exceedingly well balanced, and there was no comment, and has been none since, amongst the delegations there that we in any way let Britain down in the eyes of the developing world. The right hon. Lady may hope that we have, but that is not borne out by what is happening day by day in Santiago.
I can see what the right hon. Lady is trying to achieve. She wants to have a confrontation in the wildest possible form between the developing and the developed countries. I do not think that is helpful. I have regarded the discussions in UNCTAD, at both the first and second meetings, and at this meeting, as being very much of a dialogue between the industrialised countries and those who are still at an early stage of development. But it is a good deal more than that. It is a dialogue between the wide and major aspirations of the developing countries and often the hard realities of world trade and monetary affairs. I do not think anybody need be surprised that in such a dialogue there is bound to be an element of disappointment.
Anyone who has any knowledge of conditions in the developing countries will not be surprised that they pitch their expectations so high. Under the inexorable pressure of rapidly growing populations against limited resources, they are bound to feel that the world reacts too slowly to their demands for a fairer share. But

the hard lesson of the first two UNCTAD Conferences is that progress does not come from empty rhetoric. This has never been the British way. We have tried never to promise what we did not honestly believe we could perform.
The second lesson which has been learned in these conferences is that the only road to progress is by consensus. It is no use the developing countries forcing through ambitious resolutions if these do not command a sufficient body of support amongst the industrialised world. The first step in getting this kind of support is hard work within the group of developed countries, known as Group B, to establish the highest possible level of agreement on the proposals coming from the developing countries. We have in the past been able to take the lead in working for a consensus of this kind, without which no progress is possible, and our delegation will continue to do this at the present meeting.
A third point which I would like to make is that progress depends not only on a consensus of the kind I have just described but on hard detailed work often carried out in other international organisations to implement the ideas which have sprung from the UNCTAD. A good example of this is the generalised preference scheme in which the United Kingdom played a leading part in both the first two conferences.
Once the principle had been established, it became necessary to work out the essential elements of the scheme in detailed and often tediously slow discussions in the OECD. But the result of this is that there are now generalised preference schemes operating in most developed countries. Their introduction is, I believe, a major contribution towards giving help to the developed countries in one of its most useful forms. It is a move to enable the developing countries to earn more convertible currency to finance their schemes of development.
The importance of this move is shown by the fact that some three-quarters of all the foreign exchange earned by the developing countries comes from the sale of their exports. One of the catch phrases of the first UNCTAD was "trade not aid". The preference scheme was a great step in the liberalising of trade.
We shall in due course be moving towards the adoption in 1974 of the somewhat different scheme of generalised preferences adopted by the EEC, but the general purpose of the scheme will remain. The right hon. Lady said that it was much less generous. In certain respects perhaps our scheme is the better. We do not necessarily have to decide today that we adopt the EEC scheme. We hope that the EEC may move some way towards adopting part of ours. But here I should like to state again what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Anthony Grant), said in the debate on 13th April, that the EEC has already shown itself outward-looking and has the interests of the developing countries well in mind. The right hon. Lady may well disagree with that. On the other hand, she kept quoting the very much, as she said, more open statements made by France and Germany at the conference. If she believes that, I do not see why she is in any way worried that we are joining the EEC.

Mrs. Hart: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to quote himself upstairs in Committee about a year ago, when he said that there was no doubt that our scheme was much more liberal? Secondly, Dr. Mansholt was speaking for the European Commission and made it clear that there were considerable difficulties within the EEC. I certainly hope that Dr. Mansholt's view will prevail.

Mr. Noble: It would be unusual if anyone in this House believed that the countries in the EEC and the European Commission were always entirely in agreement. That is not a factor in the matter at all. Our scheme is on balance better and more liberal, and I hope that as the new scheme develops after we join the EEC, it will be an improved scheme as well. There is a lot of evidence that it may be so. If I am right, there is no reason to fear that enlargement of the EEC will adversely affect the trade of the developing countries.
It is natural—and a statement has been made already today and often in the last few weeks—that there should be hopes that UNCTAD III will be the occasion of a major breakthrough for the benefit

of the developing countries. Whilst I agree that it is natural that they should want this to happen, it is to some extent unrealistic. I looked up the peroration of a speech on this subject. It said:
UNCTAD will be judged not by the eloquence of our speeches not by our ingenuity in committee, but by whether, at the end of the conference, we have moved measurably nearer some at least of these practical goals.
That speech was made by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), having produced a list a little shorter than the one I have produced and certainly no more precise. But he realised, because he was responsible for doing the task which I have been doing at UNCTAD, that all that one can usefully do is to set out the directions one is aiming for and then work to see how far one can get towards it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) was made in 1967, when the balance of payments was very much worse than it is now, and when we ourselves were a debtor to the International Monetary Fund—again a situation which has considerably changed today. We should expect a great deal more of any British Government attending UNCTAD III because we are in such a better position.

Mr. Noble: The Opposition must not try to have everything both ways. They cannot both say that we are better off because our balance of trade is much better which it is—and at the same time say that we are worse off on the ground that we have a large number of unemployed. They must make up their minds about which wicket they want to bat on. It is true that development is a continuous process and the steps which the developed countries take to assist it do not occur at four-yearly intervals to coincide with UNCTAD. Indeed, it would be wholly wrong for possible progress to be held back to fit the UNCTAD time table.
I do not think that in the strictly trade sector ire is realistic to expect from UNCTAD III development on a par with the establishment of the generalised preferences system. This does not mean, however, that there is no progress on trade arrangements. Last January, a major new initiative for the liberalisation of trade was launched by a declaration


made initially by the EEC and the United States and since supported by all the major industrialised countries. The declaration itself emphasises the need to take account in the negotiations of the interests of developing countries.
I am aware that there has been a disposition in some quarters to criticise a new initiative for trade liberalisation launched by the developed countries in the same way as the recent currency settlement has been criticised as simply a cosy deal worked out by the industrialised countries in their own interests. There seemed to be at least some elements of this in the right hon. Lady's remarks. But it is inevitably true that negotiations of this kind, which depend on reciprocity for their success, must, to a large extent, be decisively carried out between the major trading nations. But this does not mean that the benefits accrue exclusively to them.
Where tariff barriers are reduced and trade is increased, this contributes to the greater prosperity of the world as a whole. In a recent report, the UNCTAD Secretariat recognised that the rapid growth in incomes in the industrialised countries in 1969–70 and the consequent increase in world trade had been a major factor in helping the developing countries to exceed the export growth targets they had set themselves.
It is worth pointing out that development targets are being met. The target fixed by the United Nations for the first development decade was achieved and all the indications are that the target set for the second development decade will be achieved also. A successful round of multilateral trade negotiations would, therefore, help to set world trade again on an expansion course and the developing countries are bound to gain from this. Their principal objective must be to secure a rapid increase in their export earnings, and a general expansion of world trade is a sure, perhaps the surest, way to bring this about. Moreover, protectionism flourishes when trade and national economies are depressed, and the best safeguard against the setting up of new barriers is a rapid expansion of trade.
One trade question on which I hope that the conference will give a useful lead is the stabilisation of trade in primary

commodities on which, despite progress in industrialisation, many developing countries rely very heavily. This is an area where we can take some credit. We have taken a leading part in all the international discussions, as befits our position as one of the largest importers in the world, and we have given our full support to the five existing commodity agreements.
The right hon. Lady mentioned cocoa. I think that we can take credit for having established last month a measure of agreement in the negotiations for an agreement on cocoa. The right hon. Lady talked about commodity agreements as though we could unilaterally decide to make an international agreement. She really does not understand the problem. Four years ago, the right hon. Member for Grimsby, in his speech at UNCTAD II, regretted that an agreement on cocoa, which he and the Labour Government hoped would be concluded, had failed just a few weeks before then. That was four years ago and we still have not got it. To talk about international agreements as being at the disposal of Britain, France, or the EEC is grossly to mislead the House. We shall certainly continue, as we have done, to put every effort we can behind this and any other impetus which UNCTAD III is giving to the work on commodities, because we regard it as an exceedingly important matter.
I do not think that it would be right for me to take up too much of the debate. I know very well the deep concern of many hon. Members who have written to me about the conference and the strength of public feeling they express. It is right that they should have adequate time to express this concern publicly. I do not therefore propose to go into aid and monetary issues of the conference, as they will be fully covered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development when he replies.
I end by emphasising that to anyone who like myself has, in the course of his work, had to travel to most corners of the globe in the last two years, the problems of the third world are only too serious and only too real. We in this country have many reasons for pride. Our particular contribution to world development has been through the development of the Commonwealth and the


way we have brought independence to so much of it.
We certainly cannot now relax and leave their Governments to cope unaided with all the problems of squalor, hunger and disease and a population explosion which vastly exacerbates already formidable dangers. Nor, in our special concern for the Commonwealth, can we neglect the rest of the developing world. If our main aim in the last troubled years has been to secure peace, if in our efforts to achieve this we have spent much time and effort on trying to win over the minds of people in the developing countries, we need not be ashamed of that, We have had much to contribute, not least our democratic system.
I can assure the House that this Government in no way less than the last faces up fully to the immediate and urgent task of trying with their old partners in the Commonwealth and with their new partners in the EEC steadily to increase the effective aid that must be found to improve the living conditions and standards of life, indeed the lives themselves, of many millions in the developing world. The fact that we approach this enormous task with honesty and realism, as did the last Government, is, I hope the House will agree, to our credit.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I want to begin with UNCTAD I, when our representative was the present Prime Minister. He said in 1964:
Together we face the intolerable problem of poverty in the world. We are determined to find ways to banish it.
Since he uttered those words the gap between the rich and the poor countries has almost doubled and the share of world trade enjoyed by the poor countries has been held down.
I was on the Estimates Committee which looked at overseas aid just after UNCTAD II, as was the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). There was a Tory chairman. The House completely accepted our report. I find it intolerable that our representation at Santiago should be so abysmal when one of the conclusions we reached about aid was:

It has also brought very considerable benefits to this country, both in the form of good will and in the form of increased trade.
Purely on the grounds of enlightened self-interest, on the chance of mopping up some of our unemployment we should have a much stronger representation at Santiago.
Secondly, we said:
Finally, by helping to bridge the gap, both economic and social, between the more and the less developed countries it has contributed to maintaining that stability which is in the interests of the whole world".
If it is in the interests of the whole world that overseas aid should be given, the Government should be extremely well represented at this important conference. This is why we on this side feel very strongly.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I remember being on that Estimates Committee with the hon. Gentleman. Would he not agree that with the problem we are debating it would be much more constructive to take a reasonable, bipartisan view rather than appear to claim a monopoloy of concern for the third world by attacking the representation of the Government at Santiago? I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has opened his guns too quickly. I am condemning not only the Government; I am condemning my own side because in this matter I do not think our efforts were good enough either. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) resigned from the Government on this issue, and I strongly supported him then. I am not trying to be partisan about this. "A plague on both your houses for the lack of aid we are giving." That is my feeling.
It is enlightened self-interest for all of us to give a lot more by way of aid to these countries in desperate need. It would help our own financial position, but, above all, it would help them to raise their standards. Clearly, since the Prime Minister spoke at UNCTAD I, the share of world trade held by the poorer nations has fallen while we, the wealthy nations, have gone ahead. All the developed countries are faced with the problem that giving overseas aid is not very


popular. It is not likely to win us votes. Nevertheless, we ought to be leaders in this.
Recommendation No. 11 of the Committee was that:
The Ministry of Overseas Development should increase the publicity given to the aid programme through such methods as the production of an annual Report, greater use of television and films and talks to schools and universities.
What we were saying then was "You have to convince the people that aid is essential; you have to create public opinion." I regret that so far very little has been done by the Ministry to sell the concept of aid as a good thing in the moral as well as the economic sense.
I end with a quotation from the present Secretary-General of the United Nations when he talked in Santiago about the importance of aid. He said:
It is now incumbent upon all present here to show concretely the political will to come to grips with these problems and arrive at truly meaningful agreements which might lead to concerted action of benefit to the entire international community and particularly to those countries and peoples with the greatest need.
The right hon. Gentleman would have prevented a vote tonight had he been forthright and positive in saying that the aid we are giving is inadequate and that we believe in giving more. His voice should have been heard clearly advocating the value of British aid and that of other developed countries.

8.17 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) because he has great knowledge of this problem. I want to say how disappointed I am about some of the reactions to the Santiago UNCTAD. It has to be remembered that at the first conference our present Prime Minister gave what I thought was a splendid lead. I had hoped that these conferences would do something in the future years, but one of the difficulties is that there are 2,000 delegates representing 141 countries together with 600 officials. It seems very difficult to get down to anything concrete with that number of persons.
I am particularly disappointed that the Council of Europe countries did not get

together as there are 10 member countries on the Policy Board. I put forward a resolution signed by 11 other countries, trying to get a policy to the Committee of Ministers which could be agreed. It has not yet happened, but I hope that such agreement will come about. It was regrettable to find France and Germany taking completely different attitudes on many questions. The Secretary-General of the United Nations in his opening address said:
Material conditions necessary for the success of this Conference are plentiful…These problems are clear.
The problems have been clear for some time, but the object of these conferences is to find solutions and we do not seem to be any nearer to doing this. I do not think that the problems are being tackled quickly enough.
As for British aid, we are 13th in the table of gross national product, so we are not being ungenerous in that we are now giving £225 million. I gather that this is to be raised to £345 million in the near future. There is still a clash between the rich nations and the poorer nations. Mr. Maxwell Stamp would be disappointed if he could see the result of the plans which he so hopefully made in 1961. There will be no solution to all the problems of the developing world unless we can make a real effort.
One difficulty is that the poorer nations have failed to band themselves together. By doing so they would be able to force their plans on the more developed countries. There are 77 poorer countries, 30 rich countries and nine Socialist countries in different blocs. If the poorer countries would only band together we should be able to help them more easily. Not only are they split geographically, but they have different ideals and aims. In addition, UNCTAD, regrettably, has no power to enforce decisions.
At least 16 of the poorer countries are African countries. If we could take a group such as the 16 African countries and concentrate on helping them, they would then be more able to help each other. Our efforts are much too diffuse, and should be concentrated more on getting just one part of the third world on its feet first.
An official of the OECD confessed:
It would be unfair to accuse the rich countries of having chosen the least developed as a means of splitting the 77. They did not put up the proposal, but when someone else did they fell on it with glee.
Mr. Robert McNamara, the President of the World Bank, said:
The state of development in most of the developing world is unacceptable—and growing more so.
He went on to give the reason, which is that development programmes have been largely directed at gross economic goals and have failed to ensure that all nations and all groups within the nations have shared equitably in the economic advance. For example, children under five account for only 20 per cent. of the population, whereas they account for 60 per cent. of the deaths. There are now 100 million more adult illiterates than there were 20 years ago.
The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) mentioned commodities and the lack of success in reaching agreements. I agree with her that we should try to persuade Dupont, ICI and Nestles to stop inventing artificial cotton, synthetic cocoa and even man-made bananas. Surely, other materials could be invented which would be of equal benefit and would not take away the trade of countries, for example, in the Caribbean whose major products are sugar and bananas. Dr. Mansholt said:
It is discouraging to see that at the same time as we send pictures of Adam and Eve to Jupiter we have been unable to avoid the monetary crisis which has shaken relations between all the trading countries in the world.
I agree entirely with those sentiments.
Economic progress depends largely on human aptitudes and attitudes. When one thinks how Malaysia, with some help from us, and Japan and Israel, by their own efforts, pulled themselves up from the devastation of the last war one realises how much the attitudes and aptitudes of individual people count.
I should like to see aid concentrated more on helping countries to plan and on training and teaching, especially technical skills. These are the only ways in which to increase gross national products. We see developing countries with a per capita gross national product ex-

ceeding 500 dollars with 9 per cent. of the world's population and a growth rate of 6·2 per cent. We see the poorest countries with a per capita gross national product of less than 200 dollars, a population of 67 per cent. and a growth rate of only 3·9 per cent. Only by planning and enabling the people to acquire skills can the growth rate be improved.
The question of a general preference scheme was put forward originally by the Prime Minister at the first UNCTAD. Australia has acquiesced to this scheme, and so have the EEC countries, and Japan and Norway, but there are still Austria, New Zealand, Canada and the United States to join. I am sorry that these richer countries have not yet joined in the scheme.
Will my right hon. Friend say why Britain has refused to support the Link proposals. I have been unable to discover the reason why it was decided that we should not even join in the discussions, particularly as some other European countries are in favour.
Will my right hon. Friend also deal with his proposals (IX) and (X) in regard to multilateral negotiations? My right hon. Friend said:
The multilateral negotiations which, I hope, will start in the GATT in 1973 should offer the opportunity to make real progress to wads the liberalisation of world trade for the benefit of all.
I do not like the phrase "I hope". I should like to think that these negotiations which have been put off for so long will take place.
Paragraph (X) states:
We should, here and in the future, discuss the development of an effective world code for shipping conferences firmly based on experience of the code already being applied by many conferences and on a sound understanding of the problem".
There is to be a conference based on the experience of the code which is already being applied, and I should like action to be taken.
I understand that there is to be a summit conference in the EEC in which the four prospective members—Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway—will join, on this whole subject in October. Dr. Mansholt has stated that the countries of the EEC will have to make up their minds about the relationship between


EEC and the third world. I hope he is correct in his reference to:
…the movement of young people who are less and less in agreement with the traditional way of gearing economic development to the accumulation of wealth for a few and of considering economic growth as the prime objective of national economic policy. These forces will certainly push our Governments into action to do more for the developing world and to do it more quickly.
Having read the speeches of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. McNamara, Dr. Mansholt and my right hon. Friend, I hope that some of the ideas expressed in them will come to fruition. If this third UNCTAD fails it will be the last conference of its kind. We cannot afford to bring together all these people without achieving any result, and it would probably be better to have finished discussions at the United Nations.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has made a moving speech, full of understanding of this problem. I think her speech has helped to justify this debate and even the Division which we propose to have later this evening.
Some months ago I had the pleasure of supporting the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Trade when he was introducing the generalised preference scheme, and supporting him against some of his own back benchers. I would like to explain tonight why I am disappointed by the Government's reaction to UNCTAD III.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech seemed to imagine that what we were looking for on this side of the House was empty rhetoric. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want a realistic appreciation of the situation by the Government, and that includes a realistic appreciation of the requirements of the less-developed countries a present and, if I may take one example, of the way the needs of the under-developed countries have been made worse by something that was entirely outside their control—the currency realignment at the Smithsonian Institute. This is something to which I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Overseas Development will make reference, but

I must say that the Minister for Trade's reference to this point was quite inadequate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) quoted words of Dr. Mansholt, the President of the European Commission. I would like to quote them again because they make my point so well and I will contrast that with what the Government are saying. Dr. Mansholt said:
At the next allocation of drawing rights, a special allocation for developing countries should be envisaged to compensate for the losses in the purchasing power of their reserves resulting from the recent monetary crisis.
In other words he was saying that there had been a loss in purchasing power by the less-developed countries owing to the recent monetary crisis and it was necessary to compensate them for that loss.
What do the Government say? I cannot take what the Minister for Trade said this evening because he said nothing, so I have to take what the noble Lord, Lord Limerick, the new Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Trade and Industry, said in another place on 19th April:
In this connection suggestions have been made that the realignment of parities has been at the expense of the developing countries. The fact is that no generalisations are possible. Different countries—both industrial and developing—were differently placed as regards the composition of the reserve holdings and the denomination of their debts, and made different decisions about their parities and the form of their links with the major trading currencies. The terms of trade will have been differently affected for different commodities and different countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th April, 1972; Vol. 330, c. 87.]
Consider that carefully balanced assessment of the position, showing that some have not done as badly as others, with the categorical statement of Dr. Mansholt, clear and correct, that the less-developed countries have suffered as a result of the agreement at the Smithsonian Institute last December.
I will illustrate the ways in which they have suffered, and it is simple enough to do so. First, let us take the terms of trade, to which the noble Lord referred. It is quite clear that as a result of the Smithsonian settlement the import costs of less-developed countries have risen in terms of dollars. On the other hand, their export earnings have of course suffered, for the simple reason that commodity prices, those which are on long-term contracts


and are usually denominated in dollars, will have fallen relative to the currencies that were up-valued in the Smithsonian agreement. Equally, of course, there are considerable commodity markets in which the United States exercises price leadership. The United States is so often by far the main customer for them. There are so many examples that I need not go into them. Therefore it is clear that commodity prices may tend to be sticky in terms of dollars and the terms of trade will turn even further against the less-developed countries than they have over the last few years, and we know that trend.
The second point is the increase in indebtedness of the less-developed countries owing to the realignment of currencies. UNCTAD has made an estimate that the increase in indebtedness of less-developed countries following the realignment of currencies is at least 2·5 billion dollars, and that estimate does not include increases in the dollar value of debt denominated in multiple currencies. My right hon. Friend referred to their current indebtedness and I am pointing out that this major problem has been made worse by this settlement among the countries of the developed world.
Then we come to the effect of the realignment in producing a decline in the real purchasing power of the reserves of the less-developed countries. Again UNCTAD estimates that the decline in real purchasing power is around 600 million dollars, and that is after taking account of a rise of 460 million dollars in the value of their gold reserves. Because of the fact that there has been an increase in dollar terms in the value of the gold reserves, the less-developed countries' share of world reserves has declined. At the end of June, 1971, it was estimated that they held 20 per cent. of world reserves but they have only around 11 per cent. of the increase in reserves due to the revaluation of gold. Here again their share of world reserves has fallen, again directly as a consequence of this settlement at the Smithsonian Institute, which was convenient to the developed countries and in which the less-developed countries had no part.
I quote Signor Rinaldo Ossola, Chairman of Deputies of the Group of Ten,

whose comments on this matter were, I should have thought, of considerable importance. He said in London recently that one of the arguments for making a regular allocation of special drawing rights in 1973 is
…to compensate somewhat the less developed countries for the loss they might have suffered on their dollar holdings following the devaluation of the dollar both in terms of gold and other currencies.
This is the same categorical statement which Dr. Mansholt has also made and which the Government refuse to make but instead put up the Under-Secretary in another place to give a carefully balanced review of gains and losses.
The answer—and I join the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport in her question why the Government's attitude towards the link is so negative—is a link between reserve creation and development aid. All sorts of arguments are produced against this proposal. One is that we should not imagine that by creating such a link we are in some mysterious way developing new resources in the world which will fall into the hands of the less-developed countries and that this will involve a transfer of real resources from the developed countries to the less developed countries. Of course it will. That is the object. But I would rather have that transfer of resources than the transfer of resources which follows when gold enters into reserves, because that involves a transfer of resources to South Africa and the Soviet Union. The former is a better transfer of resources. I do not find that a very good argument against the link.
It is claimed that it might be inflationary. I suppose that it could be. But the international community can control the creation of special drawing rights. Resources are under-utilised in many developed countries, including this country, and therefore I doubt whether this would, under proper control, have the inflationary results which are feared.
There is then the typical argument of the Government, "There is an idea but it needs further study". The noble Lord, Lord Limerick, said in the debate to which I have referred:
Our delegation at Santiago will make it clear that the British Government support the idea that this question should be closely examined, the examination to take place within the context of international monetary reform".


—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th April, 1972; c. 88.]
One must agree that study will be required of the mechanics of the idea; there are problems of allocation, and so on. But the principle has been studied again and again and has been found valid again and again by expert groups in UNCTAD, in the Brookings Institute, and by an expert group in the Organisation of American States among others. Examination of the idea as to the principle is not needed, although the mechanics of operating it may need examination. I understand that Signor Rinaldo Ossola, one of the great world authorities on this subject, agrees with the view that it is not the principle which needs study. If that is so, I cannot understand why the Government cannot say as much—that they accept the principle, although the mechanics must be studied.
The last point which is frequently made about the link is that it would undermine the acceptability of special drawing rights and therefore endanger this development in world monetary cooperation. The creation of special drawing rights has been a remarkable example of world monetary co-operation. It is very welcome in a highly competitive world in which there is great anxiety about a retreat to protectionism, and in which developed countries sometimes seem to use their trade policies as a means of waging aggressive war against other developed countries.
This is an example of co-operation rather than competition. If the cooperation could only be extended to help the less-developed as well as the developed countries—indeed, to help the less-developed countries proportionately more—this would be an even more remarkable effort of world co-operation and would be very desirable. It would be a first-class form of multilateral aid which would help the less-developed countries and also the international community.
If my hon. Friends and I are expressing disappointment tonight, it is not for lack of empty rhetoric from the Government—indeed, I thought there was a certain amount of rhetoric at the end of the speech of the Minister for Trade. This debate has arisen because the Government will not say clearly that these are the unquestioned facts which they accept

and agree must be tackled by the international community.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I sure the whole House was enlightened by the interesting speech made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), but his attack on the Government on this issue is somewhat misplaced.
The two issues which he raised are way outside the issue of UNCTAD. One is the question of the 23 billion dollar debt, which is far outside the UNCTAD. The other question he raised was the more complicated question of the link and the savage treatment of under-development by the Smithsonian Institute. Both matters are outside what is going on at UNCTAD. They cannot be decided at the UNCTAD but can be decided in the IMF, in the Group of Ten or elsewhere.
The aid programme of the present Government—and this applies to my right hon. Friend's efforts over Bangladesh and elsewhere—is as good as the programme pursued by the Labour Government. I will not go into this matter at length, but it seems foolish to divide the House on an issue which should transcend all party interests.
It has been said that this matter should concern us now not as a matter of charity but as a matter of national interest, in the interests of our own people, our own manufacturers and our own trade. This is a much sounder attitude to adopt than the attitude that is far too often adopted in this House by do-gooding and bleeding hearts. We are all desperately involved in this matter.
I take a view which is more similar to the view of Mr. Bob McNamara than to the views of some of those who have spoken from the Government Front Bench. I regard this as a serious situation. It is no longer a question of the wringing of hands, but of the ringing of alarm bells and tocsins at what is going on in the developed as opposed to the under-developed world.
I am afraid that some of the points put forward by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and much of the talk about further development will take years to work out. This is why we should look to


something a great deal swifter in operation which will have a much faster impact than did the Bretton Woods Agreement. At the moment nothing is emerging as a possible solution to this problem.
I turn to some of the points made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). She referred to the fall in commodity prices, which is having a bad effect not only on the developing world but on our trade with the developing world. As the right hon. Lady said, the price of many of the basic raw materials in the world is lower than it was in 1960, yet the price of the tractor which the man has to buy to deliver his raw materials has increased by three times. This is the problem which is being experienced by the manufacturing world and we must try to discover how to put it right. I have a long list of raw material prices with which I shall not bore the House, but I would point out that it includes the price of copper, zinc, cocoa, tin, lead and of other essential materials. My right hon. Friend has worked hard on the commodity agreements, but they have not been particularly successful.
We should look not at a new concept but at one which was adopted during the war. The concept is simply that the developed world should start raising buffer stocks to stablise raw material prices. It is not a new idea. A man named Clive St. Clare Grondona put it forward in 1939. It was used during the war by the American General Services Administration. It was used after the war to some extent in the bulk-purchase agreements proposed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In some way it is reflectedin commodity agreements such as the sugar agreement which has been so successful in the West Indies. We have one today which is not unsuccessful relating to tin and the tin buffer pool, and tin is the only material which has remained fairly constant in a world of decreasing real prices in the last 10 years.
The time has come to look at this again. I say that not just because it was referred to in the report of the Lester Pearson Committee which recommended it on page 86. It was recommended at UNCTAD in 1964. I think that there was a committee of the World Bank looking at the details of the possible support of

world commondity prices by the creation of buffer stocks.
Now we have further people coming forward, and I have in mind especially a short paper written by Sir George Bolton, who is probably one of our most experienced and successful international bankers. He ran the Bank of London and South America. He was very much involved in running the Bank of England in earlier days. Today he is head of the Commonwealth Finance Development Corporation. He puts forward the simple idea that we in this country, preferably with the EEC or the United States, should start making long-term agreements for the purchase of raw materials such as copper, lead and zinc—those materials which can be stored—and holding them out of the general stream of commerce, thus providing a stable base for so much of this world trade.
What is more, the advantage of such schemes have been argued in the past. They need a great deal of careful preparation. But in the City of London we have some of the most skilled people in these activities. We have the best metal markets in the world. It is probable that we have the most skilled mining companies. Surely here is a matter which is worthy of consideration, if we are to get stability of production and price in some of the basic raw materials of the world.
Sir George Bolton has a far wider experience than many hon. Members and many people in the Treasury in dealing with these matters. In his short paper, which I am sure my right hon. Friend will have, he outlines his idea and points out that it can be done really at no cost, since it can be done simply by making use of those dollars which are now surplus and unconvertible in the Exchange Equalisation Fund and putting them to the purpose of buying raw materials.
After the grand ideas that we have heard from some hon. Members opposite, this may sound a very pedestrian conception. But if we can get stability now and a less slow increase in the price of some raw materials on which the backward world depends for its economy, it will be far better than putting aid into areas where often it is misused. It is better to create a stable and growing market so that these people may know


that they can buy their tractors, and so on, at reasonably stable prices. This is a better scheme; it is more worthwhile and instant in its impact than anything we have heard suggested from the other side of the House.
I said that I would not speak for long. I believe that these simple concepts on how to stabilise the output and value of the exports of these countries will go a long way to help us with some of our industrial problems and also help them to narrow the gap which is so quickly being established between the richer and the poorer nations.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Like other hon. Members, I do not intend to make a long speech.
At the beginning of the debate it was said that this has been a non-controversial subject for manyyears—at least 20 years in my memory. But anyone who listened to the Minister for Trade less than an hour ago would think it should be a controversial subject. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) for attacking the Minister. She had a sting like a hornet—I am not certain about the sex—and the right hon. Gentleman deserved all that he got.
There is a growing lack of confidence about UNCTAD. This is evident when one talks to politicians from the developing nations. It is the old tale that the wealthy do not give to the poor. The gap is widening the whole time. I meet a genuine concern, even indignation, not merely here with the idealists among our younger people, but overseas. People are shocked by the lack of faith shown by leaders of other countries.
Less than a fortnight ago I was talking to a certain Prime Minister—I wish to address myself now and later to the Minister for Overseas Development—about my own Government's policy at UNCTAD and the right hon. Gentleman's capacity. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make a speech in which he disowned being the Minister of handouts. The Prime Minister to whom I spoke said "You send your embassies and ambassadors here and they furnish their missions, but what happens beyond that? I have been an ambassador in Paris and a representative at the United

Nations and I have attended constant cocktail parties. But that is no good. We like ambassadors' smiles, but we want to know what help the wealthy nations are giving to the poorer nations which are in the queue."
That is the attitude which I find when I go overseas. This disbelief becomes cynicism and often hostility, and we sometimes move into a situation of armed hostility.
I have never believed that the conflict in the world today is between East and West or capitalism and Communism. I believe that it is between North and South. The wealthy nations in the Western hemisphere, by their selfishness, are stirring up conditions between other peoples—mainly coloured—who live in the low latitudes.
I do not intend to comment on speeches which have gone before. I will not make any academic comments about the Smithsonian Institute, cocoa marketing boards, tractors, and so on.
I wish only to make a special appeal to the Minister. Earlier I said that he was not, or he disowned himself as being, the Minister of hand-outs. I am sure that he does not give these, but I should like to refer to the aid given by Her Majesty's Government, to developing nations overseas. The right hon. Gentleman once said that he does not give to those who shout the loudest. I believe, like him, that we should carefully husband and use all the aid and help which we give to the best possible advantage, not to waste it. I understand that overseas aid amounts to about £285 million, of which about 75 per cent. goes to the Commonwealth.
I now wish to talk about a part of the world which I have been in during the last twelve months, and about three nations which have been partly in and out the old Imperial dominion; namely, the Sudan, Somalia and the Yemen. These areas need help urgently. These nations have votes; their representatives attend UNCTAD, and while they are there they, like many other nations, complain about the wealthy Westerners who do not help them.
What help do we provide? We set up embassies in these countries, we furnish them, but what do we do after that? All these areas lack water. They are


areas in which we have to fight the ogres of malnutrition, ignorance and poverty. What do we give them? We provide half a dozen teachers, two or three veterinary and livestock officers, and one or two courses in the English language, the world's working language. Beyond that, we seem to do very little.
These are areas in which we should provide help, not merely because of the idealism of our young people, but because, in a geo-political sense, these are sensitive areas. We are talking about questions of self-interest beside the wider context, and these areas need stability. Many of them have moderate Governments. These are areas of shifting sands, and for the sake of everyone concerned we must give them more aid, to give stable conditions. Whatever arguments there are in Santiago, or in any other meeting place, it is imperative that the Government do much more than they are doing at the moment. Instead of making pedestrian speeches from the Dispatch Box and in Santiago, they should be actively helping these poor overseas countries.
I am using my time this evening to plead the case for one place, and one place only; Sudan. It is an area which has demonstrated an act of faith. After a civil war which has lasted for 18 years, and in which there was a considerable element of genocide—certainly here despite what has been said about other parts of Africa—the two sides have signed an agreement in Addis Ababa. This is a wonderful act of faith by the two sides.
We have certain obligations in this area, just as we had in Aden and other places, because of our past colonial commitments, activities and associations. It is imperative that the Minister should move quickly. He should move more than modestly, but he must move quickly. The Government moved quickly to help Bangladesh, and I applaud what they have done there, but I ask the Minister to pay special attention also to the South Sudan. If we do not, within the next month or two, convince the people in the bush that things have changed in Khartoum and Juba, and that there could be a new deal, we shall be back to the old dithering and dothering that we had before.
People in these developing States are suspicious of the motives and machinations of western Governments. This leads to cynicism and then to hostility. Whatever the Government do in places like Santiago, and however, much they talk about special drawing rights and marketing boards, I ask them to fulfil their duty to these developing nations which have been so near to us in the past and which need help so urgently in the future.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Harold Soref: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) will forgive me if I do not follow what he said. I agree with his hon. Friend who said that whatever hon. Members may say about it, the provision of overseas aid is distinctly unpopular in the country. On this subject I hold a view which is different from that which has been expressed so far. I believe that there is a good deal of feeling in the country over the whole question of overseas aid.
I have noticed during the brief period I have been a Member of this House that whether we are discussing questions like arming the country or the monarchy, there are always strongly differing views on either side. However, I have been distinctly surprised to find a bi-partisan view on the subject under discussion. I was privileged to be present when this matter was last debated. On that occasion I was, frankly, alarmed at the unity which existed, at least in words, on both sides.
In my view Santiago, at which a lot of lip service is being paid to the third world, will prove a propaganda sounding-board from which the third world will obtain very little. Certain countries are using Santiago for their own purposes. For example, there is little doubt that China is far more interested in giving aid to Malta to embarrass us and the West and to get into the Mediterranean than in giving aid to the third world. For this reason I feel that nothing very practical will come out of this typically United Nations discussion.
Indeed, there will be increasing efforts to exploit the East against the West, for one cannot create a welfare state of the world or look at the matter in the sense


of extracting funds from the so-called richer to the so-called poorer countries.
Nor is there the moral element to which many hon. Members have referred. When it is voluntary aid—whether through Oxfam or other media by which people give their money—it is charity and it is commendable. But when it is a matter of public money being taxed for this purpose, then high moral purpose is not involved because the Government of the day, whichever party is in power, decide to tax the public to divert the public's money for this purpose. Where there is no personal or conscious sacrifice, it is not charity. Nor is it high-minded.
I do not accept that there is anything sacrosanct about giving aid to overseas territories. If one reads the report of the proceedings at Santiago one finds, for example, that at the opening of the debate President Allende, who made a particullarly hostile and passionately Marxist analysis of the theme, referred to the "privileged nations". I do not accept that they are necessarily "privileged".
Those countries which hon. Members describe as "rich" were not always rich. They pulled themselves up often by their own boot strings. Many countries have become rich through their own efforts. Consider Israel, Hong Kong, Malaya, and Formosa. These nations were not always rich. They have achieved their position through hard work and expertise.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the city which both of us to some extent represent was built up on the basis of the slave trade and the fact that raw materials were drawn from colonial countries—in other words, not necessarily by hard work but by sheer imperialism, both political and economic?

Mr. Soref: It was built to a large extent by the shipping industry. The City of Liverpool grew up also because of all sorts of factories and developments which were no reflection either on Liverpool or on those who lived there.
I believe that the money which goes in aid year by year, which equals the entire surtax collection at present and which also equals the amount spent on all British universities, is not necessarily popularly supported in the country and

I do not believe that it is necessarily to the advantage of the receiving countries.
Debts have been mentioned. In Ghana Dr. Nkrumah was given a vast amount of money by Britain. It did not improve conditions in Ghana. That debt has been dishonoured. Many of the countries which receive aid practise the worst forms of racism and the most inhuman policies. In those countries massacres and expulsions of British subjects take place. Before funds are given to such countries there should be a degree of security for British citizens living and working there.
It is not necessarily a coincidence that those countries which are most avid at the begging bowl are the same countries that have expropriated British interests and expelled British citizens. British citizens have been expelled from Kenya, Zambia, Zanzibar, Tanzania and many other countries. A British citizen was expelled from Malta only this week. Action must be taken against those countries.
I do not see why the British taxpayer or the capitalist taxpayer anywhere should have to finance the "Chilean road to Socialism" of President Allende. If Chile and other such countries wish to involve themselves in Socialism or Communism, and if they believe that this economic theory works, they should not consider that they must depend on the capitalist countries to pay up. The system of the distribution of goods in Chile, which was largely a British system until the revolution, worked admirably.

Mr. Heffer: What revolution?

Mr. Soref: It was reported in The Guardian yesterday or the day before that the system of distribution of goods in Chile by such British firms as Balfour Williamson, which have now been nationalised, worked admirably until the nationalisation and expropriation. Until there are adequate safeguards and protection for British interests, we should not give more money from British taxpayers.
We should also consider that these so-called developing countries—that word is pure supposition—are less developed than others because of their high leisure preference, their lack of interest in material advances. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may not appreciate it. However, Professor Peter Bauer, of the London School of


Economics, gave that as one of the prime reasons for the condition of the people in the under-developed countries. I repeat that he is a professor at the London School of Economics, specialising in the under-developed countries, to which these people at times appear to be attentive. In these countries local institutions, beliefs and customs are not always compatible with material advance. The prestige projects and the uneconomic airlines that many of these countries have are also factors that have made their economies uneconomic.
On the other hand, I believe that with stable conditions in these countries, if they put their own houses in order, plenty of private enterprise would flow into the countries and create opportunities for the people there. But that stability is too infrequent. Societies do not have an inalienable right to increase their gross national product at someone else's expense. The ultimate hypocrisy is that those who are in Santiago, those who are demanding that most money should go to the undeveloped countries, often for an unrecognisable purpose, are the very people who are engaged in attempting to destroy the supply routes to the Cahora Bassa project, a £150 million scheme by private enterprise in Mozambique which is doing exactly what they fail to do.
The policy of those who wish endless funds to be paid out is to risk impoverishing the West. It is significant that those countries that give the most are those the recipients favour least. The United States has given more than half of the total amount expended by the so-called rich countries to the so-called developing countries. Yet while in session at Santiago there were the most violent demonstrations against America and the American flag was burnt. That is an indication of their lack of appreciation.

Mr. George Cunningham: America is a very rich country and the figure of their aid, expressed in dollar terms, is very large. As a percentage of gross natural product America's contribution is very low—about comparable with our own—compared with other donors, and within that figure a very large part consists of so-called "supporting assistance" in Indo-China, which is assistance for purely poli-

tical purposes, and with which most people in the world disagree.

Mr. Soref: America has been extremely generous in the aid she has given from the Marshall Plan onwards. Whether the total figure as a GNP percentage is more or less than ours, I am not certain. It could be less, but America has shown unparalleled generosity. In America there is an increasing and widespread public demand to reduce the figure.
As long as the undeveloped countries have economies which are not viable, and lack stability, it is unfair to expect the capitalist countries to finance the Socialist and Communist countries which are doing their best to subvert the nations which are giving the aid. For these reasons I believe that it is reasonable, not least because of the strong feeling that exists in this country, that we should be circumspect in the aid we give these countries. There is decreasing evidence that they prosper because of it.

9.15 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I am almost speechless after listening to the contribution by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref), and I am sure the House will forgive me if I do not take up the point he raised. [An HON. MEMBER.] "Who could?"] Indeed, who could? If the hon. Member believes, as he said, that the whole question of overseas aid is unpopular, then his speech will be one of the most unpopular speeches heard in the House for a very long time.
I do not share the view that people do not care about aid or the developing world. I believe there is a growing lobby in this country, particularly among the young people, who care passionately about what is happening in the developing world, who feel responsible and who feel that the concept of responsibility for their neighbour has widened in the present situation in the world, and, in particularly, in the third world. I do not want to dwell on that. Instead, I want to take up one point not dealt with in the debate, which I am very glad we have had.
We have been told that the Government have rejected the 0·7 per cent. of GNP target for Government aid and are proposing as an objective the increase of private investment. To make that


proposal in a country like Chile, which was recently rocked by the exposure of how an American company had tried to prevent the elected president from becoming president, is rather ironic. We are to embark upon an alternative to the proposal that we on this side of the House support. We want much more than is proposed. We are to embark on private investment, and it has never been explained clearly to me how that benefits the developing world.
The following advertisement appeared in The Guardian on 19th April:
People are earning HUGE PROFITS in Nigeria, where there is a huge domestic market of 55 million people. Abundant manpower is available at a rate as low as 7 U.S. cents per man-hour. Pioneer industry enjoys substantial amenities. It is possible to get your investment back in less than three years. People are earning huge profits in Nigeria. Why don't you?
That is not my idea of aid, and I do not believe that it is something the Government can substitute for the various proposals at the conference described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart).
I am not necessarily saying that there is always something wrong with export credit or investment. What I am saying is that those who indulge in it do so not out of compassion or because they want to benefit the recipient countries but because it is profitable for them. It is very odd that the Government lump together overseas investment with aid in relation to the developing countries, but not in relation to other parts of the world. It was Robert Wood, the Director of Studies at the Overseas Development Institute, who pointed this out so well when he wrote:
When British Petroleum invests in Alaska it never occurs to us to think of this as part of a British aid programme to the United States. When credits are made available to facilitate the export of capital goods to the Ruhr, no one thinks that this is aid to West Germany. If such credits carry low rates of interest, they do so to enable Britain to compete with other suppliers and not because we want to help the Germans. Yet … if we make export credits available to Mexico, there is a disposition in some quarters to say that this is aid. But what has changed? Is business with rich countries business and business with poor countries aid?
Sir Paul Chambers, former distinguished Chairman of ICI, made the following apt comment:

It is no part of the duty of any private enterprise company to use the funds of the stockholders to help the development of an undeveloped country in such a way that the profits accruing to the shareholders are less than if the funds were used in some other ways.'
In other words, when someone is indulging in private investment and private business with the developing world, he is doing it in order that his profits shall be as great as, if not greater than, if they were invested in this country or any other part of the world. For a private capitalist, financial investment in the developing countries is aimed at making a profit, not at improving the standard of living of the people in those countries. I think, therefore, that when the Government try to substitute investment for aid they are doing a disservice to what is being discussed at the conference and are also in a sense being hypocritical because they are giving the impression that we are making a far greater contribution to the developing world than we are.
I give another example because it is time that we looked at the whole question of investment. We are told that the record of the EEC in both aid and investment to the developing world is much better than ours and will be even better if we join. It depends on where one looks and how one looks at it. The most flourishing economy in black Africa —perhaps the showpiece of French and EEC relations with the third world—is the Ivory Coast. Over half the commercial and industrial enterprise of the Ivory Coast is in French hands with no restrictions on the repatriation of funds to Paris. The number of French personnel has multiplied several times since independence, yet unemployment in the indigenous population has doubled and the vast majority of peasants have seen no improvements in their living standards.
One can go on giving other examples, not necessarily of all EEC countries but certainly of some, where investment overseas is included in or regarded as and held out to be aid to developing countries. But the people it is helping and assisting are those who need it least, the rich, the private shareholders and the companies which are doing this to improve their present position.
Presumably, the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who sits with a smirk on his


face, wants to avoid developing countries turning Communist and wants to help capitalist countries retain capitalism, but I am not bothered very much about that in the context of this discussion. I am bothered about the widening gap between the rich and poor and the fact that we are indulging in hypocrisy if we kid ourselves and other people that this alternative suggestion is going to make an alternative contribution to the question of aid.
My right hon. Friend, who so ably opened the debate, said that UNCTAD was not simply about aid but also about fairer conditions of trade for the developing world. She said—and I agree—that this is probably more important than an aid programme. This is what we ought to be discussing tonight and in the future, deciding on some strategy whereby assured markets for the products which the developing countries can best produce are open to them, and we adjust our economy and the economies of the developed world so as not to compete with them in that respect.
The cost of manufactured goods which we export to the under-developed countries is increasing much more rapidly than the cost of raw materials which we import from the poorer nations. One example is Malaysia, which had to export more than twice as much rubber in 1970 than in 1960 to pay for the same amount of manufactured goods. We know that the share of the developing countries in world trade fell rapidly during the 1960s. We know that the amount having to be paid back on debt service charges is rapidly approaching the amount which these countries are receiving in aid. Coupled with this is the fact that the rich countries are increasingly trading among themselves to the exclusion of the developing countries, and this is one of the aspects concerning many of us about the whole question of the EEC.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: European trade with developing countries is expanding faster than ours, just as the trade within the Six is expanding.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Mr. T. H. H. Skeet (Bedford) rose—

Miss Lestor: I am sorry, I have not finished. My hon. Friend does not usually sit down so quickly.
My hon. Friend and I disagree on this point about Europe, but I do not think we disagree about the urgency of the problem facing the developing world. He puts a little more of his hope in Europe; I do not. We have to see which way we are going in the management of world trade and determine whether we can stop producing certain goods, changing the whole emphasis of production, thereby leaving open for the developing world markets where their infant industries and technology can best be used. This is urgent for Britain and the industrialised countries in or out of Europe.
I am sorry that the Minister for Trade was proud of making a balanced speech. I would have preferred that he made a very unbalanced one. One of the things happening at this conference is the confrontation of two worlds. Europeans are calculating whether enlarging the EEC offers us and others a better television set or washing machine, a sauna bath and a higher standard of living in general. The third world citizens would like the chance to live to be half the age to which large numbers of people in this country live. They would like the chance to see fewer of their children die, often before they have had a chance really to live. They would like to see more than one doctor to 50,000 inhabitants. It is difficult for us in the developed world to understand the stark poverty and the misery that there is in these countries. No one should make a balanced speech in this situation.
I agree that we do not want people representing Britain to make promises they cannot fulfil or widen horizons simply to pay lip service to sentiment. It is important that we do not allow this Government to get away with hypocritical noises by saying that instead of sticking to the target which we set they will indulge in private investment, which is exploitation at its worst.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) is very cynical when she suggests that countries such as the United Kingdom are only concerned in making profits and not in raising the standard of living in these countries about which we are


talking. I can cite the case of an American company which is not only concerned with oil but with developing water resources. There is a Dutch company concerned with the development of agriculture in Venezuela. In our enlightened age I only hope that Socialists will wake up to reality and appreciate that we are faced with a critical situation between the third world and the West. If in all their bouncing about with the old and decrepit ideas of 50 years ago they think they can provide a solution they are entirely wrong. If only the third world would recognise that its participation in the capital of the Western world would be one of the best ways in which to develop this would be a wise course to adopt.
The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) said that she specifically left out the Middle East. She said that was an area where one commodity—oil—was dealt with. She completely forgot that in Africa—in Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana and elsewhere—supplies of oil are being exported and those countries are able to cash in on the arrangements which have been negotiated by OPEC and which will extend throughout the world. The recent currency arrangement of an additional 8½ per cent. applicable to the Middle East will be extended elsewhere. There is therefore some light on the horizon for these countries.
We are confronted with a world problem, and I am concerned about how to put it right. I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said about special drawing rights. I do not know whether he observed what Paul Schweitzer, the managing director of the IMF, said, as reported in today's Financial Times:
We must seize this opportunity to build an enduring system, not least because of the benefits that the developing nations will derive from a smoothly functioning system.
He went on to say:
We should not be content with technical improvements … but should seriously reexamine the system as a whole.
Finally, to show a completely open mind on the subject:
an enlarged monetary role for special drawing rights or paper gold.
I believe that we shall come round to increasing world liquidity by giving addi-

tional allocations of special drawing rights to the developing countries. There is a danger that it may be inflationary. By increasing the price of gold from 35 to 38 dollars an ounce the Americans received a substantial upgrading of their reserves. The reserves of the United States and the industrial countries of the Western world went up by a total of 3·8 billion dollars, whereas the poorer developing countries with few reserves had an increase of under 500 million dollars.
We must recognise that the best way to bring about alterations in commodity arrangements is by commodity arrangements, if these can be negotiated. But if the countries are too diverse and cannot get together through an agreement, those arrangements will be out.
I do not believe that stock-piling will be satisfactory. The United States is stockpiling copper. There are three major world producers of copper—Chile, Zambia and the United States—but even if stock-piling goes on the price of copper does not necessarily rise. When the economic climatic conditions throughout the world are bright, trade increases and people will participate in the rising price. When the world is booming everybody is happy and the developing countries are doing remarkably well, but when the world is in a state of depression the developing countries, unfortunately, come off worst.
I will outline one or two reasons why I consider that the developing countries require support. Between 1961 and 1969 the foreign debts of 80 developing countries increased three-fold and reached a total of 59 billion dollars. This is a considerable sum of money. I know there are cases like Ghana where President Nkrumah built up his own debt system and left it as a legacy to those who followed him. In many parts of the world countries want technical aid, advice and association. Justas in the United Kingdom we write off the debts of nationalised industries, we shall have to work through the International Monetary Fund or another international world order for some change whereby these enormous burdens can be taken off the shoulders of these developing countries. This question will have to be examined extremely closely.
I am also worried about the terms of trade. I have dealt with that but should like to mention again that if market prices are lower than in the late 1940s and if for developing countries in 1966 the price index for exports was taken to be 100, it had risen in 1971 to 107·7. So far as the developed countries are concerned, their price index had risen from 100 to 114. Therefore, they are paying more for their tractors and many other things they require for the necessities of life, and when they try to pay they find that they have not enough money in the bank.
This is the situation in which we stand and Her Majesty's Government have one way out: we can tie our aid. We have been doing this, of course; I think my right hon. Friend indicated in the House the other day that most of our aid continues to be tied. In 1966, 57 per cent. of our aid was tied. It had declined in 1969 to 64 per cent. after having risen in the interval.
The complaint of the developing countries is that if they had the right to spend the money they receive in various parts of the world they might get a bit better value for money. I appreciate that, but we have to look after our own industries and our own employment situation in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I think it quite equitable to suggest that if we are providing the money there is no reason why a certain amount of governmental aid should not be tied.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: There is an intriguing point about this. The hon. Gentleman is talking about tied aid. In all the estimates made by the Estimates Committee and others, multilateral aid gives us the greatest return, and that is not tied.

Mr. Skeet: I am not sure that I agree. There are other countries which have tied aid. All the aid given by the Export-Import Bank in the United States is tied and they find it extremely profitable. I have no doubt that the Government would work on the assumption that if other countries would untie their aid we would probably do the same, but we are a liberal-minded country and we believe that by trying to develop more trade throughout the world we can assist the developing countries most.
There was mention also tonight of what our total contribution is, and I very much regret to say that if one looks at the Government support for the developing countries, one sees that it is not too good. The United Nations has mentioned 1 per cent. of the GNP, of which the contribution from the governmental source is to be 0·7 per cent. In 1966 it was 0·67 per cent. In 1970 the decline, which continued through both Governments—therefore neither can get the credit for it—reached 0 ·37 per cent. This is not because we have not tried but there have been certain difficulties in the way.
I move on to the Generalised System of Preferences—GSP. This was a concept of the Prime Minister back in 1964 at UNCTAD I, and I think that it was a very good idea to encourage countries to produce what they felt they could in manufactured or processed goods and to send them to the United Kingdom. But one or two anomalies have grown up and I would mention these.
Hong Kong is the source of an estimated 20 per cent. of all the industrial products exported by eligible States. We find that Hong Kong is doing remarkably well but it does not mean that the smaller countries in Africa are sharing in the general prosperity. Looking at one or two of the other countries which do well, we find that the lion's share is going to five countries in all, which are relatively advanced and have extensive industries. I refer to Brazil, Mexico, India, Singapore and North Korea. Although it is said of the 96 members of UNCTAD that they are struggling and trying to find a way ahead, we find this rather anomalous situation that Hong Kong participates quite disproportionately, as do also Brazil, Mexico, India, Singapore and North Korea.
If we look at the oil States in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, we find that in Kuwait, for instance, the standard of living is very high because the oil revenue is huge.
I should also mention the question of the leather tanneries, which are manned by people in the age range of 40 to 55 years. Will people here be prepared to see their own workers unemployed while we lower the barriers to allow hides to come in from other parts of the world? We must be reasonable, but there are


difficulties. Tanneries are normally located in places where there is no other source of employment.
International trade is better than aid. We should be very wise to adopt the German scheme. We should help what is known as the poorer core first. To give soft loans at under 1 per cent. interest, extended over 50 years, with 10 years' grace, is a reasonable suggestion. I accept the view of Pierre-Paul Schweitzer that to extend special drawing rights to the developing countries and to impose very strict control to ensure that the inflationary situation does not go beyond bounds is a reasonable way of increasing their liquidity, possibly at the expense of the industrial States. But unless something is done, I can envisage a very much worse situation developing.
I look forward with great enthusiasm to our joining the Common Market. We have had a Commonwealth in past years. We are not imperialists. We have done more for the Commonwealth than anybody else; we have an exceedingly good record in that respect. Let us not bow our heads in shame. If we join the Common Market we shall be able to show France and her other European partners that we intend to assist the nations overseas and the developing States. Perhaps while we are debating the Common agricultural policy we shall consider that a great contribution should be made for the benefit, say, of some of the African States. That would be an extremely good idea.
There has been unanimity in the House that this is a very serious problem, and we must do something decisive if we are to arrest the trend.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I should like to pose a question which I am sure many of us on this side of the House would like to put: where are the members of the Liberal Party? Why are their benches empty during a debate as important as this? Recently, in the Common Market debate, they held the balance between those for and those against. Now, when we are debating an international situation and the balance between rich and poor nations, they are nowhere to be seen. The debate is the poorer for that, and it is deplorable that their representatives are not present to speak.
There have been references to Mr. Robert McNamara, who heads the IMF. He came to fame as the person who made cost-effective mass killing in Vietnam fashionable, but in Geneva he is supervising the most sophisticated dole ever. We should like to think that he will be successful in his efforts. If he can manage to atone for the Vietnam blitzkreig by bringing an end to the "We steal and they beg" syndrome which has been apparent in the history of the last 500 years—that is, the rich nations stealing from the underdeveloped nations when they had empires and were the colonial masters, while they, until very recently and indeed now, had to go to UNCTAD and organisations like the IMF and say, "We must beg you to help us out of the problems caused by your exploitation of us over the generations" —this is one of the good things which will come out of UNCTAD.

9.45 p.m.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I apologise to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) for cutting short his speech. My dilemma is that if I am to make a full reply to all the points raised I am liable to occupy too much of the time in this short debate. This is the third debate on this subject in the two Houses of Parliament in the last two weeks and I am the fifth Government speaker. I will keep my speech as short as possible, but I hope to reply to some of the aid points which have been raised.
It is important to keep a sense of perspective. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development convenes for some reason every Leap Year, and I do not know whether there is any significance in that fact. It is an extremely important gathering because of its subject matter and its effect on the world scene, but, clearly, the needs and problems of developing countries are both urgent and continuing. Many of the developing countries are making massive and effective efforts to quicken their own development, helped by the interplay of trade and investment and by aid flows from the richer countries and from the various agencies.
The purpose of the UNCTAD discussions is to take regular stock of progress —or lack of progress—in world development which, in the nature of things, is


continually changing and extremely complex, and is a proper object of cooperative endeavour. For this reason it is extremely difficult for any contemporary judgment to be made as to the success or failure of any particular UNCTAD.
It is evident that most of us recognise the vast problems which exist in the developing world. Over the years this country and other nations have made significant steps forward in the provision of aid for development. Unfortunately, we have also a certain amount of guilt in taking some significant backward steps. However, I am proud that Britain alone has provided nearly £3,000 million to expand the economic potential of the world and to help the advance to the broader objectives of fair and just societies which human nature has in common.
From time to time we and other Governments have taken significant steps forward, sometimes at UNCTAD, sometimes in other parts of the United Nations and sometimes outside. But it is a mistake to regard each international gathering as a forum in which developed nations vie with each other on the lines "Anything you can do I can do better" and where developing nations are tempted to substitute sterile confrontation for the more fruitful co-operation which we would like to see.
Much that might be done must depend on reciprocal agreement between donors and between donors and receiving countries. Therefore, conferences like UNCTAD can most usefully set the scene for subsequent general agreement on further useful advances in the field of development. One of its benefits which this debate has helped to serve is that it helps to bring these enormous problems more closely before the people of Britain and many other countries. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) was particularly concerned with this matter. There has been a wide coverage in the Press and on television of UNCTAD and development problems. Next week on BBC2 there will be a series of six programmes called "Rich Man, Poor Man", and it will be remembered that my Department last year co-operated with The Times and with Thames

Television to try to focus attention on problems in the developing countries. All this is to the good.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) mentioned various targets, as did many other hon. Members. The 1 per cent. target which has come in for most discussion was not devised by this Government. This Government did not devise the 1 per cent. target or the elements that comprise it. The 1 per cent. target was devised by UNCTAD I and, in a different sense, by UNCTAD II, and it was followed by perfectly proper pressure to accept the target and to name a date for that acceptance. Now that the target has been accepted and is being largely achieved, some of those who pressed for its adoption denigrate it as not being aid. No one has ever claimed that private flows which form a significant part of the 1 per cent. target are official aid. The target was, and is, a target for total financial flows, and this Government have always claimed that private flows, freely accepted by developing countries, have a value of their own. Certainly the Pearson Commission commended them, and before the last General Election the right hon. Lady's Government themselves seemed quite enthusiastic about them. Presumably for the same reasons UNCTAD included them within the 1 per cent. target, and we continue to expect that a good part of the 1 per cent. flow will come from these sources.
Both the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) pressed for the 0·7 per cent. official target. They will agree, I am sure, that like their Government, the present Government are a long way away from the 0·7 per cent. target. I have always been anxious to avoid paying lip service to a 0·7 per cent. target unless I was convinced that the Government could achieve it. On present plans we are likely to be considerably below the target of 0·7 per cent. of the gross national product in official development assistance, even though last November's White Paper on public expenditure showed that the Government intended to increase aid programmes in constant price terms each year by a greater rate than almost all other programmes of Government expenditure.
Various problems which have been thrown up by UNCTAD III have been


discussed. It is perfectly clear that as development goes forward new problems and new possibilities are bound continually to arise. One major problem to which attention has been drawn in the debate is the growing indebtedness of many nations. The right hon. Lady mentioned it. My right hon. Friend referred to it in his speech at Santiago.
It is a subject of increasing concern which has led to studies both by the World Bank and by DAC. The World Bank study shows that the growing indebtedness of many nations often provides reasonably welcome evidence of success in attracting capital resources for development. As long as borrowed money leads to successful development, the resources necessary to service the debt are likely to become available. Obviously there are many other cases in which the position is less satisfactory. While donor Governments and institutions can do a certain amount to regulate flows of concessional aid, it is very difficult for them without being unacceptably paternal, certainly unacceptably paternal as most of us would see it, either to regulate or seriously to influence the decisions of developing countries on the uptake of commercial credit.
We and other donor countries can make efforts to encourage restraint, but, despite those efforts, developing countries may, and do, reach the decision from time to time to ask for the renegotiation of their debts. These requests are bound to create very serious situations which affect the creditworthiness of the country concerned and also the general confidence on which the present international credit system rests.
Developed and developing countries for this reason have common interests in the best management of resources and the avoidance of debt crises. This was one of the important subjects raised by my right hon. Friend in Santiago. He has been criticised tonight and on other occasions for not proposing solutions. I believe that it would have been entirely wrong for him unilaterally to have done so. This is a problem for the satisfactory solution of which many Governments must join together and discuss in the weeks and months ahead.
One topic which has been raised by several hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for Lanark and my hon.

Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers), has been the possible link between aid and Special Drawing Rights. Our delegation in Santiago has tried to make perfectly clear first, the Government's expressed support for the bringing in of and the participating by the developing countries in discussions on monetary reform, for which the right hon. Lady was kind enough to give my right hon. Friend credit, and, secondly, pointed out that several variants of the link proposal had been suggested and that it would not be realistic for Governments to accept the principle of a link without a better and clearer idea of what was proposed.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that an examination by the IMF is now going on and that many Governments broadly concur in the view which her Majesty's Government have taken on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport and other hon. Members raised the question of the least-developed countries. I assure her that it UNCTAD recommends a special international effort to help them, we should certainly, particularly in view of our close contacts with so many of the least developed countries, want to join in working for such an agreement. I recently expressed to one of my hon. Friends the view, which I think is shared by most developing countries, that the greatest need at present is for technical assistance rather than for capital aid.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) raised the subject of Southern Sudan. I am as pleased as he is to hear of the agreement which has been reached on the Southern Sudan. The problem of returning refugees is already grave and likely to cause great problems in future. Already British agencies, including Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund, and so on, are discussing the situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently discussed it with the Sudanese Foreign Minister; the United States Government have offered substantial help; and we and other Western Governments are considering what we ought to do. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that I hope soon to be able to give an encouraging reply to the Sudanese Government.
The right hon. Member for Lanark has told us that the Opposition intend to have a Division at the end of the debate. If they want a Division, so be it; it is for them to decide. But we all know—my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary knows only too well—that when the troops are brought to the battlefield it is difficult to avoid a battle. No doubt the Division is intended to show that the Opposition's intentions are more honourable, positive, and enlightened than those of the Government. However, I think that tomorrow those who study the debate are more likely to be impressed by the objectives which have

united us rather than by the comparatively few arguments that seriously divide us. They will observe that between 7·15 p.m. and one minute to 10 o'clock the House of Commons was seriously divided on no important point of principle. I hope that they will rightly pay more heed to the substance of agreement throughout the debate than to the empty shadow of the Division which apparently we are now to act through.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 127.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Brldgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Pendry, Tom


Bishop, E, S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Booth, Albert
Huckfleld, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Reed, D. (Sedgefleld)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SlrArthurfEdge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Janner, Greville
Roper, John


Buchan, Norman
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carmichael, Nell
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Skinner, Dnnis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Judd, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Concannon, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lawson, George
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Leonard, Dick
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Tinn, James


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Deakins, Eric
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Weitzman, David


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Delargy, H. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wililams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Dunn, James A.
Marsden, F.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael



Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foot, Michael
Mendelson, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. James Hamilton.


Golding, John
Millan, Bruce



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.





NOES


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chapman, Sydney
Fldler, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichesler-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clegg, Walter
Foster, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert
Fowler, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Coombs, Derek
Fox, Marcus


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Boscawen, Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Drayson, G. B.
Gray, Hamish


Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh
Green, Alan


Bullus, Sir Eric
Emery, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald
Grylls, Michael


Channon, Paul
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Gummer, Selwyn




Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spence, John


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, lain


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Sutcliffe, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jessel, Toby
Normanton. Tom
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kilfedder, James
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Waddington, David


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Knox, David
Peel, John
Wall, Patrick


Lane, David
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wilkinson, John


Luce, R. N.
Redmond, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodhouse, Hn.Christopher


Maclean, Sir Fltzroy
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


McMasler, Stanley
Sharpies, Richard



McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maddan, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Mather, Carol
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Mawby, Ray
Soref, Harold

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Rossi.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (FOREIGN VEHICLES) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 7

INTERPRETATION AND TRANSITIONAL
PROVISIONS

10.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (7) and insert:
(7) Any reference in section 1 of this Act, or in subsection (1) of this section, to section 160 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 shall be construed as a reference to that section read together with section 5 of this Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following Amendments:

No. 2, in line 17, leave out subsection (8).

No. 3, in page 10, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 18.

No. 4, in column 3, leave out lines 21 to 53.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The House will recall that in Committee the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said that it might be wiser for the powers necessary for the Department's examiners to arise from the consolidated Measure, the Road Traffic Act, 1972, rather than from the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which, of course, has been subsumed from the point of view of these powers within the new consolidation Measure.
We had some debate on this matter, which turned very largely on whether there would be a gap between the implementation of the Bill and the coming into force of the consolidated Road Traffic Act, 1972. I undertook then to look into this matter and to see whether the length of gap enabling my Department's examiners to begin their task of checking foreign vehicles would be sufficiently long to justify our resting the powers on the old rather than on the new Act. I have come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman was right, and therefore I am very glad to accept the spirit of what he proposed. I think he will agree that tilt Amendments meet his point completely.
Further, we hope to be able to commence the implementing of these powers, subject to this House and the other place agreeing to this, some time in early June;


so there will be a matter of weeks before the July date for the consolidation Measure. Nevertheless, because we shall not be enforcing the whole rigour of the law immediately, and because we shall hope to operate in a fashion of escalating the inspection gradually, perhaps with warnings at the beginning, I think it right to accept the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I hope that he will agree that the Amendments make it a tidier and a shorter Bill.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. I am sure that both he and I would have preferred that the Bill could have become law at an earlier date, but it was not held up because of any action by the Opposition or through any lack of diligence on the part of the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend.
We want the Department to have powers effectively to enforce the regulations and the requirements on foreign vehicles. It will be much tidier not to have this complicated overlapping arrangement and Schedule, particularly as the Bill when enacted will relate entirely to foreign vehicle operators and, therefore, will be a matter of concern only to the employers of those drivers, namely, for the most part European firms.
The Bill was not, as it first appeared, a very elegant advertisement for the legislative output of the House of Commons. It will be improved by the Amendments. I still think that it will be far from being the most elegant Measure I have seen. As I said in Committee, if the European Communities Bill, which occupies much of our time these days, had been put in the hands of the same draftsman it would have reached 100 Clauses, if not more.
This matter could have been more elegantly done, but we want the Department to have the powers. I hope that the Department will not be exercising any powers before it is legally entitled to have the powers. I should not want the Department to suffer from excess of zeal in that sense.
I should also like the Under-Secretary to look at the enforcement resources at his disposal, because the only disturbing thing about the Bill is not in the Bill itself but in the preamble, which says that no additional enforcement officers will be involved. That could well nullify what both sides of the House want to secure, namely, the effective enforcement of our traffic regulations as to weight, and so on, with regard to foreign vehicles.
As the result of an Amendment that we made in Committee, it is possible for the Minister to choose the date when this Measure comes into operation. I am sure that he will choose a date that will give people in this country time to prepare and give firms which send over the foreign vehicles adequate time, so that unfortunate instances will not arise from this necessary legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 2, in page 9, line 17, leave out subsection (8). —[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Schedule 1

ENACTMENTS CONFERRING FUNCTIONS ON EXAMINERS

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 10, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 18.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Schedule 2

PROVISIONS RELATING TO VEHICLES AND THEIR DRIVERS

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 10, column 3, leave out lines 21 to 53.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

EGGS (GUARANTEED PRICES)

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.
I will explain the purpose of the order as briefly and clearly as I can. It reenacts the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1971, its purpose being to continue to support the arrangements which are in force by virtue of the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1971, which in turn provides for guarantee payments to be made to producers of eggs which are packed by registered packers. It differs from the order it replaces only in that it implements the decision made following the Annual Price Review to allow guarantee payments to be made in respect of all first quality eggs, irrespective of size. First quality eggs weighing less than 1½ oz—extra small—were hitherto ineligible for guarantee payments. Extra small eggs form only a tiny proportion—less than 1 per cent.—of all first quality eggs, and as the egg subsidy is now at a low rate—½p per dozen—it is now unnecessary to continue to make special administrative provision for this insignificant category.
There is also the advantage that if we drop this distinction and bring all first quality eggs within the subsidy it would be easier for us—ifit were to become necessary before the end of this financial year—to enable producers to claim subsidy on any first quality eggs they graded to the EEC standards.
As regards the transition to the EEC egg marketing arrangements assuming that the House passes the European Communities Bill, discussions are still taking place with the trade and other interested bodies and the timetable for the changeover period is yet to be finalised. Egg producers, the trade and consumers' organisations are all anxious that the changeover to the EEC egg grading system should be made as soon and as quickly as possible so as to minimise confusion to the trade. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would agree with this, and I am sure that it is right.
Finally, I would add, in case there is any doubt in hon. Members' minds, that as the order was made on 23rd March the reference to "Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland" in Article 9 is a reference to the Stormont Minister of Agriculture. The functions referred to in Article 9 have, since the passing of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972, on 30th March, 1972, fallen by virtue of Section 1(1) of that Act to be exercised after the order came into operation on 2nd April, 1972, by the Secretary of State.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: With a sense of deep emotion I approach this painful case because I never had a notion that an egg could create so many problems.
Clearly, any harmonisation of the number of approved marks for eggs is not likely to cause major dissension between the parties. I should be intrigued to know to what extent eggs less than 1½ ounces differ from the smallest gradable mark within the Common Market regulations, which I suspect are in grammes rather than ounces. I fear that a minor modification may be required to enable full harmonisation.
There is a much more serious point on the interpretation of "fresh eggs", which the order says means
eggs which have not been preserved by cold or chemical storage or any other means",
and Article 3 of the order, which talks about the marking of containers. This, clearly, raises the much more important point that the consumer's interest in knowing the age of the egg he buys does not appear to have been satisfactorily dealt with in the order. It may well be in the interest of the producer of eggs to make certain that no eggs are offered for sale which are stale by any criteria. On the other hand, it may equally well be in the interests of the wholesaler and retailer of eggs to hide the age of the eggs which they are selling. What we regret is that in the order no effective mechanism is introduced which will guarantee to the consumer that the egg he buys under these procedures is a fresh egg in the normal meaning that people will attach to such a term rather than under the interpretation in Article 2, whether this be by a date stamp upon


a case of 15 dozen eggs or—as I and, I suspect, many other hon. Members on both sides would prefer—with the date stamp on a carton of eggs referring to the six or dozen eggs in the carton rather than the whole box of 15 dozen. There is no provision in the order for guaranteeing to the consumer an effective fresh egg under those criteria.
It would be difficult to argue with the inclusion of the extra-small egg, but the interests of the bantam rise to my mind and the prospect of securing access to an approved mark of bantam eggs. No one on either side would wish to see disapproved of the bantam and small egg, suitably graded in quality, size and price.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that the Ministry is pursuing very vigorously the whole question of the dating of eggs provided for our domestic market.
I welcome with certain reservations this change in the standards, the inclusion of a fifth standard of extra-small which starts to move towards harmonisation. Whether it be harmonisation or not is irrelevant. In that there were eggs less than 1½ ounces, which our potential entry to the Common Market is totally unconcerned with, these eggs are now brought within the proper ambit of grading and approved marking. What is more important to the consumers is that they should have an adequate dating protection.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance, in the interests of the consumer, the producer, the wholesaler, and the retailer, most of all the consumer, that the consumer will know the age of the egg he is buying and that the Government are prepared to take steps to ensure that stale, if not addled, eggs are not supplied to the consumer.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I welcome what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said about the fact that the changeover between the United Kingdom gradings and the EEC gradings will take place as speedily as possible. Perhaps this is an opportunity for to provide an answer to a problem, although I realise that it may not yet

have been fully considered. It seems likely that there may be a short period when eggs of both United Kingdom gradings and EEC gradings will be served side by side in the shops. This might cause worry to consumers and housewives in particular. Has my hon. Friend been able to consider this point yet?
Secondly, during the interim period when it seems that both types of grading will operate, is it not likely that the EEC countries could export eggs to us of their own gradings but that we might be in difficulty about exporting eggs of our gradings to the EEC countries. From the producers' point of view, reassurance is needed here.
I appreciate that these are detailed points which may not yet have been given full consideration, but my hon. Friend's comments would be appreciated.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: One does not want to give the Parliamentary Secretary too much of a baptism of fire because eggs are a bipartisan topic. However, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes), because it is almost impossible for the consumer now to know what a fresh egg is, not only because there is no date stamping on individual eggs—which is a controversial matter in itself in the trade—but because in a large city like London, in the middle of which I live, it is impossible to buy any edible egg whatever. Whether such eggs are deemed to be fresh is neither here nor there. They are inedible and uncookable, and I have long ago given up buying or eating them.
I have three questions that I want to put, slowly, to the hon. Gentleman because I do not want to throw them at him all at once. The first concerns date stamping of containers, not of individual eggs. Did the Minister consider this and consult the trade? Are we feeling our way towards it? That would be of some benefit at least to the retailer, if not to the consumer, because the retailer could then give a service to the consumer by ensuring that he knew the ages of the eggs himself and, in the interests of good business, did not offer stale eggs or eggs over a certain


age to his customers, even if those customers would not necessarily know the age because there was no date stamping. Is the idea of date stamping entirely hostile to the EEC regulations? We may ultimately have to conform to its standards in any event.
My second question concerns the advantage of extra quality eggs to the consumer and an extra mark, so that we are to have under the order five categories of quality egg. Can the Minister say how the consumer can expect to benefit from having this extra mark—the extra small egg, as it is called? It seems that harmonisation is all very well, but one hopes that it will be in the interests of the consumer. On the face of it I cannot see that the consumer will benefit.
My third and last question concerns the order. If the only difference between this order and that of 1971 is the change in approved marking, why was it necessary to re-publish the whole order? It is not unknown—certainly in the last year we have seen several examples of this in agriculture—for there to be amending orders rather than re-publication of an order, particularly one as long and complex as this. I would have thought that the simplest thing—it would have saved work in the Department—would have been to publish a short amending order substituting the new grades. If this is not the only change, why does the Explanatory Note refer to only one change? If there are other changes, what are they?

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: By leave of the House, I will reply to the points that have been raised. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. I well remember when I underwent that ordeal; it was nearly as bad as that through which I am now going! We congratulate the hon. Member and look forward to seeing him in that position for many years to come, at least until the next General Election.
Like so many of these short debates, this has been an interesting one because those who have taken part are keenly concerned with the subject. The order involves a simple arrangement because we want to keep things simple as they are phased out. It will help with adminis-

tration and go some way to prepare for entry to the Community. It will also help the producers in that I understand that there is the possibility of another £30,000 going to them in subsidy as a result of the introduction of this smaller grade.
I have a plan here giving the comparisons of our grades with those of the Community, and I would be happy to let hon. Gentlemen see it later. In the United Kingdom we have five grades; the Community has seven. In practice only two or three grades are used, and I understand that our grade is smaller than the smallest EEC grade.
Date marking is not necessary for the protection of the subsidy, which is the important point. It would not be right for the order to impose additional burdens upon the industry when they are not required to protect the subsidy. There are in Section 6 of the 1970 Act provisions which enable the Eggs Authority to submit to Ministers schemes for quality control which cover the date marking of containers. The Eggs Authority has put forward proposals for a scheme for date marking containers, and we have agreed to it in principle. The authority is preparing a final scheme for submission to Ministers in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We are moving forward on this, and I hope hon. Members will feel that it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Mark Hughes: What is the reaction of the wholesalers and retailers in the trade to such proposals?

Mr. Mills: To be perfectly frank, I am not sure. From my past experience I would expect a slight reaction against the proposals, but we are prepared to go ahead in principle. When we have the final scheme before us we will deal with it.
The hon. Member for Durham mentioned bantam eggs. I see no difference between a bantam egg and any other egg. If a bantam lays an egg large enough to be graded it will be graded. I know bantam eggs are very small, but all eggs—whether from a bantam or from a gleanie—will be graded in the normal way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) spoke of the standards of egg grading of the EEC


and ourselves. If he so desires I will send him a copy of the graph which shows the differences. In general practice there are three grades rather than seven. In the transitional period there may be problems with the export and import of eggs, and we must harmonise our standards to fit in with those of the EEC so that these problems do not arise.
The hon. Member for Waltham stow, West (Mr. Deakins) asked about the date marking of containers, and I have answered that point. The date marking of containers is compulsory in the EEC. There again we are moving towards harmonisation.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we have gone to the trouble of bringing forward a new order. Although there is only a small alteration, I think it is right that the requirements should be set out again.
I hope the order will be of benefit to the industry. It will certainly help with administration costs and harmonise our entry into Europe. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

RAILWAY PROPERTY (SAFETY OF CHILDREN)

10.39 p.m.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: I raise the subject of the safety of children upon railway property because my constituency has not only a large mileage of railway lines but electric rails of the third rail variety which are of particular danger to trespassers.
I raise the matter in sad circumstances because for the second time in less than a year a child has been killed on the railway lines in my constituency. This brings the total of children killed and maimed in the Southern Region to an

alarming number. In four years 21 children have been killed on Southern Region tracks and 29 have been injured, although not all of them in my constituency. However, a high proportion of these instances has occurred in this area of South London where children find it difficult to discover places to play, and naturally they seek every opportunity to climb through the railway fences which are erected to keep them away from the line.
Improvements could be made in a number of areas to save children's lives and to stop them being maimed for life. I am indebted to Mrs. Smith, whose son was maimed, for the enormous amount of work she has done in the South London area. She is determined to ensure that members of the public do not miss the fact that a great deal more could be done to protect children from the railway lines.
It is plain that British Railways have a very difficult problem. They have about 3,000 miles of line and spend over £250,000 a year in fencing. But it remains true that if one travels beside the railway tracks in West Lewisham one can see enough gaps every mile for dozens of children to climb through, and the temptation to do so is enormous. It is true that the first duty is on parents to stop their children from trespassing on the line. It is also true that the schools should do everything possible to encourage children to stay away from the line. But it is the statutory duty of British Railways to ensure that children do not find access to the railway easy.
In my constituency, and in much of South London, it is easy for children to get on the railway. Only yesterday I went to a point to which I had taken the area civil engineer of British Railways about three months ago when I showed him places in the hedge and a large opening abutting a road through which, over which and under which children could climb. Children who can no more than just walk can get straight on to the track. I sadly said then that if something were not done about it another death might occur. One did occur—not at that point, but within a mile of it. I fear that unless we take this matter much more seriously further accidents will happen.
There are two respects in which a considerable change could take place. The first is the fencing of the railway line.


British Railways are concerned to fence in all the land they own rather than the line. This involves the erection of a much larger amount of fencing and children are attracted to the land rather than to the railway so that children who have no intention of playing on the railway climb in to play on the waste land beside the railway because it makes good "cowboys and Indians" country. It is after they have been playing there that they fall over or climb over to the railway. British Railways should look much more closely into the possibility of fencing the rail itself and ensuring that the railway embankment is fenced off in areas in London particularly where there is waste land beside the railway.
But more important seems to be the use of that waste land. In my constituency the major problem is housing need. I see compulsory purchase orders made in order to pull down perfectly good houses to make way for further education colleges and for other education purposes. I see hundreds of people every month who are in poor, inadequate or very bad housing. It is appalling to see so much railway land available which could be used for housing. I am sad that this is not done, and I am particularly affected by the fact that local authorities complain that the Railways Board is less than quick in discussing, arguing about and producing the land when it is there for all to see.
The Government should press on British Railways that land which is not to be used for railway purposes—because certainly nobody will build a new railway at West Lewisham—must be released without delay for housing use. This would enable the building in my constituency alone of more than 200 new units of housing—that is, 200 families definitely housed instead of being left in the situation in which they are living at the moment.
In this way we could protect the railway more effectively and we could see that children do not get on to the railway land and that the number of families who face the agony of a child being killed will be diminished. It is also true that if it is to be fenced in, if we are to protect the railway line, it is importaint to draw to the attention of parents and schools and of the children themselves that there is a third, electric rail.

One problem is that many people do not understand that this innocent looking rail is highly dangerous.
Anyone who has seen the horrible damage which can be done to a child by an electric rail will realise how essential it is for us to have notices making it perfectly clear that the line is electrified. It is odd that in South London there are fewer notices warning people that the third rail is electrified than there are on most Continental railway stations and railway embankments warning about the dangers of overhead lines which are so much less likely to be touched by a child. It is therefore an essential part of the duty of British Railways to see to it that everything possible is done to prevent these accidents.
I appreciate that it has been argued that British Railways have already done a great deal, that it is expensive, that it is awkward and that it takes a great number of people to patrol the lines. But it is necessary to repeat that it is a major part of the duty of British Railways to protect children from themselves. They must do so first by protecting the lines by building proper chain link fences on the south side of the railway line; secondly, by selling land which British Railways are at the moment hoarding so that homes can be built for the people of London; and, thirdly, they must see that the chain link fencing which is built is clearly marked so that children who are able to read will be able to know that the third rail is electrified and so that those who cannot read can be warned by the use of some of the pictures which are so effective when used by the Continental international standards organisations in warning of the dangers of electricity.
I appeal to the Government to take immediate action to press on British Railways the danger of continuing with a system which involves patched-up fences. In one case of which I have knowledge the fence is repaired with a piece of fencing which provides the children with a climbing frame. The fence is exactly the sort that is found in the formal climbing frames either in schools or in playgrounds. That fence is to be found on a railway embankment and enables children to climb over it.
If British Railways are not prepared to take immediate action in the three ways I have outlined, we should press for an independent inquiry into the state of safety of children on railway tracks, particularly where there is a third rail system. I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give me some hope that British Railways, having been warned by 21 deaths and 29 serious accidents, will move to improve a situation which is becoming so desperate.

10.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), as always, has spoken out powerfully and well on behalf of his constituents. Essentially he has raised and linked together two topics. The first is the danger to children, and I agree with him that this is a desperately serious matter where it occurs. The second is the need to release more railway land for housing. Again, he is right to stress the need for more land to become available in his constituency.
I deal first with the danger to children, and I begin with a definition of what is meant by "a child" in this context. To me, a child is a young person up to the age of, say, 13 years. As we know from experience, within that spread of age there are a number of separate categories.
First, there are those aged up to three. It is with great distress that I have to report that in the last six years 18 of these very small children have been killed by being struck by trains when wandering on the tracks, and two have been killed by the electrified conductor rail. In the same period 21 were injured on railway property.
Then there are the slightly older but still very young children aged between 4 and 6 who may not, because of their age, be able to appreciate the danger of going on to a railway. Over the last six years 17 such youngsters have been killed by trains, 12 by the electrified conductor rail or by contact with the overhead wire and four in other ways on railway property.
The third category are those between the ages of 7 and 9, who probably cannot be strictly supervised all the time

but who can understand, if properly warned by their parents, that all railway lines are dangerous, especially electrified lines. Of these children, in the last six years eight have been killed by trains, 17 by contact with electrified lines and four by touching the overhead wire. which almost always involves a deliberate act of climbing.
Lastly there are those youngsters between 10 and 13, the early teenagers about whom I shall have something to say later. In the last six years a total of 38 of these youngsters have been killed, five by touching the overhead wire, which I must repeat is almost always a deliberate act, and 86 were injured, 20 by touching the overhead wire.
The tragic facts are that 149 children have been killed and 230 injured during the past six years. By any measure this is a deeply distressing waste. However, I owe it to the House to put these casualties into perspective, in that there are some 11,000 route miles of railway in the country and that almost always all the children who are killed on railway property, especially on tracks, are trespassers.
Nevertheless these figures are distressing and far too high, and I assure my hon. Friend that my Department is just as anxious as he is, as is the British Railways Board, to see these tragic figures reduced. That is why details of all cases of accidents to trespassers on the railway are returned to my Department. In every case involving an accident to a child my Department's Railway Inspectorate follows up the question of access and looks in detail into the type and condition of fencing.
I should add that in the case of fatal accidents a special report is made to the inspectorate by coroners, and any rider or recommendation made by a coroner is at once discussed with the Railways Board. The special notice that the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways takes of accidents to children has, I think, been made very clear in his last two annual reports. For instance, in 1969 his opinion was that the main cause was lack of proper parental control. I agree with that.
In the following year Colonel Robertson, in his 1970 report, put in a plea


which I want to reiterate tonight. He said:
The public can do three very necessary things: they can keep their children under proper parental control; some of them can cease their selfish making of gaps in railway fences; and the remainder can report at once to the police or the railway authorities when they see a fence being broken down.
I agree absolutely with the chief inspecting officer's remarks.
As trespass is the root cause of almost all these tragedies, it could be argued that trespass itself should be prevented: that the railways should be so thoroughly and strongly, indeed massively, fenced that trespass on to them is made quite impossible. But I must tell the House that there are two major snags about this.
The first was stated with simple clarity by a learned and noble Lord in a recent judgment in another place, when he said:
The cost of erecting and maintaining an impenetrable and unclimable, or, as it has been put, a 'child proof' fence would be prohibitive if it could be done at all.
The second snag I have already mentioned: namely, that the means of easy access by young children on to the tracks all too often is through gaps in the railways' protective fencing which have been deliberately made for their own selfish ends by adult trespassers. My hon. Friend referred to one which he saw recently. I will ask the chief inspecting officer to look into that particular case.
The kind of thing that happens is that some adults on a housing estate want to take a short cut to the other side of the railway—say, to a public house—and because they want to keep on using that short cut they break down the fences and keep them broken down. In one such place in 1970 the fences on both sides of the line were broken down so often and so thoroughly that they had to be given organised repairs no fewer than six times in nine months. It was at this place precisely that a child of three strayed through the gap and was struck by a train.
Secondly, at another place where determined adult trespass had developed a short cut across the line, the railways' engineer had to report that it had become impossible for his staff to keep pace with repairs. Again, it was at that place that a child of two strayed on to the line and was killed.
Thirdly, at a place in South London during 1969 a small child wandered on to the line and was electrocuted. He had gone through a gap in stout iron railings that had been forced apart. The gap had been seen by railway staff who had blocked it with barbed wire, but the wire had quickly been torn away by trespassers to keep the gap open, and consequently the child was killed.
The question is: how are we to overcome these difficulties? My hon. Friend suggested more notices. I shall, through the chief inspecting officer, put his point to the chairman of the Railways Board.
There is, of course, fencing. British Railways have a statutory obligation to fence their tracks. Originally this obligation arose to prevent cattle and sheep straying on to the track, and the fencing was fairly simple. Later, however, the Government added a further requirement, not statutory, but always most scrupulously obeyed by the railways, that where the line is electrified on the conductor rail system and there is a substantial risk of trespass by children the fences must be made difficult to climb and not less than 4 ft. 6 in. high. Very often the railways go a good way beyond what we ask of them. In particular, where any new work such as electrification presents an increased risk to child trespassers, the railway authorities, as a standard practice, take steps to warn people of the extra risk.
I have looked into this matter with some care, and I consider that the safety precautions and the standard of fencing that is specified are sufficient within the limits set by practicability and cost. I therefore do not consider that an independent investigation is warranted at this time.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would my hon. Friend look into the matter of where the fencing is? I accept that the standard is what is practicable, but what I am suggesting is that many times the railways fence in the land rather than the railway line.

Mr. Griffiths: I take the point and I shall look into the matter.
I want to turn now to my hon. Friend's second point, namely, the sale of surplus land and his suggestion that by selling this more rapidly it would reduce dangers of children going on to the


tracks. There is something in this, because children might gain access to the line from adjoining disused railways property, or they might tunnel into the embankments of lines that have been closed.
The board is well aware of this aspect of the problem, and also of the fact that its land resources are an asset that need to be capitalised. The board has a strong financial inducement not to keep its surplus land standing idle. British Railways, as a public body, offer first refusal of any surplus land to the local authority, which normally has about three months, and sometimes considerably longer, in which to make a firm application to purchase. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that there has been rather more progress in this matter than has been generally realised.
In the last three years British Railways' sales of surplus land have totalled more than £36 million. In London over the last eight years the board has made available about 800 acres to the Greater London Council and London boroughs, and in the context of my right hon. Friend's London Housing Action Group British Railways are now conducting a new survey of all their land in London to see what additional sites can be made available. I am glad to say that this has produced a further 90 acres of possible housing land in the nine boroughs with which the board has been in contact.
About 35 of these surplus acres are in the London Borough of Lewisham, whose council officers recently met British Railways' representatives. British Railways have also just sold to Lewisham Council their Forest Hill goods yard of 1¾ acres adjoining the main line, together with parts of closed line—about 1½ acres—at Brook Mill Road, Deptford. This is evidence of the gathering momentum of sales of railway land, but it does not mean that the Government are satisfied with this rate of progress. We want to see much more of the surplus land of all the nationalised industries opened up for better use and in particular, as my hon. Friend has said, for housing.
I must now return to the main subject of the debate, namely, the danger to children. So long as any of their surplus land remains unsold, British Railways have the same liability towards tres-

passers as the other owners of property. It is therefore in the board's own interests to take all practicable steps to exclude trespassers and to see that if they succeed in entering they are not avoidably endangered.
That said, I believe that the problem of children on railway lines needs to be approached from both ends. The heart of the matter is not simply what the railways may be able to do, though I accept that they have a large responsibility. The heart of the matter is what can be done to stop children from wandering on to the tracks through gaps that are opened up in the fences, largely by adults. As regards very small children, I am clear that the main responsibility for them must rest wholly with their parents or guardians. "Responsibility" and "duty" are words too little thought of nowadays, but in the context of the care of the very young they are absolute and inescapable.
I find it a sad commentary on parental responsibility that any young child should be allowed to wander about unaccompanied near any railway line. However, this does not and cannot excuse those thoughtless adult trespassers who make and leave holes in fences through which unsupervised children may stray. They should think before they beat down a fence or make a gap in it that the next person to use that gap may be a little child, perhaps their own.
Older children present a different problem, and this is particularly true of teenagers, who do not need adults to make holes in fences for them. Some of these teenagers are bent on mischief, often dangerous mischief, such as playing "chicken" across the line in front of trains. A recent example was when a group of 10 children were playing a game of "dare" on the main line near Fryston in Yorkshire. Two of them failed to get clear and were killed. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways has told me that on one of his inspections in the Stoke area he saw some boys playing "last across the line" in front of his inspection coach.
Some of the trespass is really malicious mischief, such as placing obstacles on the line to be run into by trains. In January last alone there were three derailments of trains caused by obstacles placed on the line. One was of a locomotive hauling a train of 100-ton oil


tank wagons and it was caused by an obstacle placed on the line by a boy aged 10. That he knew what he was doing was shown by the fact that he had first experimented with a smaller obstacle, and when that failed to derail a freightliner train he put on a bigger one. Another derailment was of a light locomotive. Two 12-year-old boys wedged a pair of points half open in the locomotive's path and caused nearly £3,000 worth of damage.
The figures show that more obstacles are being placed on the line. Many obstructions are placed on the line and found and removed, but the number actually run into by trains has risen from 47 in 1964 to 133 in 1971.
What is the answer to the child trespasser? In my view the safety of children up to the age of 6 is wholly the responsibility of their parents. For children aged from 7 to 9, they can best be kept safe by instruction and discipline, old-fashioned words but wholly relevant here.
As to the last age group, those aged from 10 to 13, it is up to us all to help the railway authorities and the police to keep them off the tracks. When anyone sees any trespassers on the line, he or she should telephone at once to the police or the nearest railway station. If

this is done promptly, a young life may be saved or a malicious attempt to wreck a train may be thwarted.
My hon. Friend has done a service not only to his constituents but to the House in raising not one but two real problems. I assure him that I will draw to the attention of the chief inspecting officer all the points he made and, as necessary, to the chairman of the Railways Board.

Mr. Robert Cooke: May I occupy the few seconds remaining for this debate to ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the need, in the development of surplus railway land, to collaborate with adjoining owners? Railway land is often oddly shaped and uneconomic. Better results from the point of view of the community in the development of such land can usually be achieved if there is collaboration with adjoining owners.

Mr. Griffiths: I am certain that not only will I bear that in mind but that the property board of British Railways will do the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock